Telangana High Court
WP/11007/2016 of The Superintendent of Post Offices Vs S. Ali Usman, on 29 December 2016
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No.11007 of 2016 Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad, allowing an application filed by the 1st respondent herein with regard
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.11007 of 2016
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad, allowing an application filed by the 1[st] respondent herein with regard to the withdrawal of the 2[nd] financial upgradation granted under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the Department of Posts has come up with the present writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. A.Kranthi Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Venkanna, learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent.
3. The admitted facts are that the 1[st] respondent was originally appointed to Group-D post on 30-3-1979; that he appeared for a written examination for promotion to the post of Postman on 21-11-1982; that the results of the said examination were declared on 20-12-1982; that he also appeared for the examination for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant on 31-12-1982, the results of which were declared on 08-02-1983; that after joining the post of Postman and working in the post for one month, the 1[st] respondent relinquished the promotion and accepted the promotion to the post of Postal Assistant; that in the post of Postal Assistant, he underwent training from 01-6-1983 to 20-8-1983 and was appointed on 24-9-1983; that he was granted financial upgradation under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme on 27-9-1999; that upon the introduction of the MACP Scheme by the Office Memorandum dated 18-9-2009 with effect from 01-9-2008, the 1[st] respondent was granted a financial upgradation with effect from 01-9-2008; that the said financial upgradation was withdrawn by the Department by the proceedings dated 23-8-2010; that challenging the withdrawal and also seeking a direction to grant financial upgradation, the 1[st] respondent filed O.A.No.225 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal; that the Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that the 1[st] respondent could not be taken to have secured promotion to two posts and that therefore the Department is before us.
4. The only question that fell for consideration before the Tribunal was as to whether the 1[st] respondent had gained two promotions or not.
5. Both sides agreed that if the 1[st] respondent had gained promotions to two posts, the 1[st] respondent would not be entitled to the benefit of MACP. Otherwise, he would be entitled to the benefit.
6. The case of the Department is that the promotion of the 1[st] respondent to the post of Postman on 28-01-1983 and his continuance in the post for about a month would tantamount to the 1[st] promotion and that his subsequent promotion to the post of Postal Assistant with effect from 24-9-1983 should be considered as the 2[nd] promotion.
7. But the above contention of the Department is flawed. Admittedly, a Group-D post happens to be the feeder category to both the posts of Postman and Postal Assistant. The post of Postman, is a rank lesser in status than that of the post of Postal Assistant. This is why a Group-D post as well as the post of Postman, both happen to be feeder categories to the post of Postal Assistant.
8. In other words, a Postman as well as a Group-D category employee is entitled to be promoted to the post of Postal Assistant. In addition, a Group-D category employee is also entitled to be promoted to the post of Postman, which is an intermediary post between a Group-D post and the Postal Assistant post.
9. Looking at the admitted sequence of events, it is seen that the 1[st] respondent appeared for selection to the post of Postman on 21-11-1982 and also appeared for selection to the post of Postal Assistant on 31-12-1982. In other words, the selection for both categories of posts has happened simultaneously. But unfortunately, the results for selection to the post of Postman came a little earlier than the results for selection to the post of Postal Assistant. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent reported for duty as Postman, but withdrew the same immediately upon the declaration of results for selection to the post of Postal Assistant.
10. In the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the 1[st] respondent gained two promotions, one to the post of Postman and another to the post of Postal Assistant. If the contention of the Department is to be accepted, the 1[st] respondent should have been promoted from the post of Postman to the post of Postal Assistant. It did not happen. He was promoted only from the post of Group-D category to the post of Postal Assistant. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, we see no error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
29[th] December, 2016. Ak
______________________ G.SHYAM PRASAD, J.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.11007 of 2016(per VRS, J.)