Central Administrative Tribunal
B Ruthamma vs D/o Post on 28 December 2018
OA/1292/2012 *Spay*
**CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD**
**OA/020/1292/2012**
**Dated: 28/12/2018**
Between
B. Ruthamma,
W/o. B. Mruthyunjay Rao,
Aged about 62 years,
Occ: Retd. Accounts Officer,
O/o. Director of Accounts (Postal),
Hyderabad – 1,
R/o. Flat No.401, H.No.2-2-1075/15/1to5, Muddasani Classic Apartments, Near Tilak Nagar X Roads, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad – 500 044.
... Applicant
AND
1. 1. Union of India rep. by
The Director General of Posts,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. 2. The Chief Postmaster General,
A.P. Circle, Hyderabad – 500 001.
3. 3. The Director of Accounts (Postal), A.P. Circle, Hyderabad – 500 001.
... Respondents
<table border="0">
<tr>
<td>Counsel for the Applicants</td>
<td>:</td>
<td>Mr. M. Venkanna</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Counsel for the Respondents</td>
<td>:</td>
<td>Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. CGSC</td>
</tr>
</table>
OA/1292/2012The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a sunburst design in the center, surrounded by the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' and 'ESTD 1973'.
**CORAM :**
**Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman**
**Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member**
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.
**ORAL ORDER**
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman)
The applicant joined the service of the Postal department in the year 1972. She was promoted on ad hoc basis, to the post of Junior Accounts Officer in the year 1988 and was regularised in that post in the year 1990. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Assistant Account Officer in the year 1994.
2. There existed a measure to avoid stagnation in the form of Time Bound One Promotion (for short – TBOP) in the Postal department. On completion of service of 16 years, an employee will be entitled to a financial upgradation if he is not promoted within that period. In the year 2008, the Government introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP). According to this, an employee shall be entitled to be extended the benefit of upgradation on completion of 10 years, 20 years & 30 years of service in case he/ she did not get any promotion or upgradation in those spells. This O.A. is filed stating that the applicant was not extended the benefit of MACP and it was only in the year 2012, after her retirement that the benefit of TBOP was extended, that too without any tangible result, whatever. Relief is claimed in that behalf.
A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to be 'M.S.' or similar initials.
The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a sunburst design in the center, surrounded by the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' and 'भारत गणराज्य' (Republic of India) at the bottom.OA/1292/2012
3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the O.A. According to them, the occasion to extend the benefit of TBOP to the applicant did not arise in as much as she started drawing a higher salary, on being promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Junior Accounts Officer in the year 1988. It is also stated that in terms of MACP, the ad hoc promotion of the applicant and regular promotion to the post of J.A.O. counted for the second upgradaton and the third one is subsumed by her promotion to the post of Accounts Officer.
4. We heard Sri M. Venkanna, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. K. Rajitha, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. The TBOP, or for that matter ACP, is an anti-stagnation measure to such of the employees, who did not have the opportunity of being promoted to higher post, for want of vacancies or avenues. In the Postal department, the initial upgradation is in respect of a spell of 16 years of service. In case there is no financial upgradation or promotion during that spell, an employee is entitled to that benefit. The case of the respondents is that the upgradation under TBOP came in the form of ad hoc promotion to the post of JAO. Though no attempt was made, at relevant point of time to indicate extension of the benefit under TBOP, the respondents have undertaken the notional exercise after retirement of the applicant and issued proceedings dated 14.3.2012. The applicant was put in the pay scale of Rs.5500/-. However, the applicant was found to be drawing a higher pay than that, on account of
OA/1292/2012
her ad hoc promotion to the post of JAO. Therefore, the TBOP is virtually subsumed or swallowed by the ad hoc promotion.
6. In terms of the MACP, the applicant was entitled for three upgradations, in case she did not earn any promotion or other upgradation. By the time the Scheme was introduced, the applicant was extended two such benefits – one in the form of ad hoc promotion, which has subsumed the TBOP, and second in the form of a regular promotion. Therefore, she was entitled to the benefit in the form of 3<sup>rd</sup> MACP by 2008. The applicant got the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer. That took away the necessity of extending any benefit under MACP. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was denied any benefit under MACP.
7. We do not find any merit in the O.A. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
प्रमाणित प्रत CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
केस संख्या CASE NUMBER: OA 1292/2012 निर्णय की तारीख DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28-12-2018 दली की तारीख DATE OF ISSUE OF COPY ON: 29-1-2019
Section Officer / Court Officer केन्द्रीय न्यायालय का अधिकार Central Administrative Tribunal हैदराबाद बेंच/Hyderabad Bench