ANITA DEVI vs POST UP CIRCLE on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Administrative Member The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the relief(s), which are quoted herein below: - “(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give TBOP and BCR promotion to the applicant since when her junior Sri Ram has been given so that justice could be possible with the applicant.

(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to revise the pay of the applicant time to time after promoting her and give payment of the arrears of pay along with interest @ 12% from the date due to the date of actual payment within a stipulated period of time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent NO.2 to revise and refix the pension and all pensionery benefits and give payment of arrears with interest @ 12% per annum and the same may be directed to be paid within a stipulated period of time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

VIVEK RAWAT

(iv) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(v) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

2. The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the applicant entered in the Department of Post as an Upper Division Clerk in SBCO HPO, Muzaffarnagar on 22.09.1987 as trainee and thereafter she became regular in the Department since 04.11.1987. The applicant was retired on 30.04.2010. In the year 1991, the department changed the nomenclature of cadre of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk and converted them into new cadre i.e. PA SBCO. According to policy, all UDCs were taken as senior to LDCs and in the gradation list all the UDCs were kept above according to their seniority and all the LDCs were kept below. The respondents department made a gradation list in the year 2007 and placed the applicant at serial No. 229 and Shri Ram was placed below her at serial No. 253 as Shri Ram was entered in the department as L.D.C. The name of applicant was erroneously placed in the list of LDCs in spite of UDCs hence, her seniority has been affected. The department issued order for modification of TBOP/BCR scheme in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 13.02.2017 in IA No. 2, 3 and 4 of 2016 in SLP No.35654 of 2015, in the matter of Union of India and others Vs S Bheesmachar and others, and after consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T), it has been decided that under TBOP/BCR scheme, seniors would be considered at par with their juniors if junior is getting promotion earlier than the senior. The same was conveyed vide CPMG letter No. STA/441-XS/Review of TBOP- BCR/10dated 03.07.2017. The Chief Post Master General, U.P.Circle Lucknow made promotion under BCR scheme to the officials of SBCO cadre at par with their juniors through Memo No. STA/441-XS/Review of TBOP-BCR/SBCO /10 dated at Lucknow the 12.09.2017 but the applicant was not promoted whereas it is clear from the memo that seniors have been extended stepping up benefit and their date of promotion to TBOP VIVEK RAWAT

and BCR have been revised at par with her juniors. The respondent No. 2 granted second financial up-gradation under BCR Scheme to the officials of PA SBCO at par with their juniors on 12.09.2017 and placed one Sri Ram at serial No. 112 of part A of memo. As Sri Ram is junior to the applicant hence, as per applicant, the respondent No. 2 was duty bound to step up the applicant at par with her junior and her name should have been included in the memo dated 12.09.2017, however, respondents did not do so. The applicant gave representations to the respondents, in this regard, on 26.07.2018 and 12.10.2022 to respondent No. 2 but, no heed was paid. Hence, she has filed the present O.A.

3. The respondents have filed their counter reply and pleaded that the applicant, namely Smt. Anita Devi, Ex-PA (SBCO), Muzaffarnagar, HO, has joined the department on 04.11.1987, as UPPER DIVISION CLERK in SBCO cadre, under relaxation case. She performed her duties in various Head Offices, in SBCO branch on transfer from time to time. She retired from the Government Service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2010. The applicant had submitted representation dated 26.07.2018 in O/o the CPMG, U.P., Circle Lucknow, for revision of date of financial up-gradation under TBOP and BCR Scheme and requested to grant up-gradations under these schemes w.e.f. 16.08.1999 and 01.01.2004 respectively, at par with her junior Shri Sri Ram, PA (SBCO), Fatehpur, HO. The reply on representation of the applicant dated 26.07.2018 was given to the applicant vide CO letter No. STA/441- XS/Rep/Anita Devi/SBCO/10 dated 22.09.2021, that she retired from government service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2010, and her Service-Book stands weeded out in the concerned office of the custodian after the completion of prescribed preservation period of said documents and no representations have been found to be received during the aforesaid period of service-book retained with the custodian, from her end. Therefore, it is not feasible to examine her claim in the absence of complete documents viz. Service-book etc., at present. VIVEK RAWAT

Her representation dated 26.07.2018 was received in this office after elapse of more than 08 years of delay. The preservation period of the service-book as per Part-I Annexure 'A' of Appendix 5 of P&T F.H.B., Volume-I is 03 years after death /retirement or date of final sanction of pension, whichever is later. Since, the applicant has now filed the case after elapse of more than 14 years of her retirement and after 03 years after disposal of representation, her case is liable to be rejected on the above grounds. The respondents have also submitted that as the relief requested by the applicant in the present O.A. No. 549/2023, pertains to the year 2010 as she retired on 30.04.2010 and she was raised the issue first time in 2018 and filed the O.A., in 2023, hence the O.A., is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

4. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

5. The Applicant in the case retired on 30.04.2010 and submitted a representation to the Respondents on 26.07.2018 asking for revision of dates for promotion at par with her juniors. A reply to the representation was given by the Respondents on 22.09.2021 that her service book stood weeded out after the completion of the prescribed period of preservation and also that her representation was received in the Department after a lapse of more than 8 years and no representations were found to be received during the period the service book was retained by the custodian. The request was therefore, rejected.

6. It is seen that The Department issued a letter No.22-06/2000-PE- I(Pt) dt 08.05.2017 which was issued in pursuance to the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dt 13.02.2017 in the matter of Union of India and others vs Bheesmachar and after consultation with DOPT where it was decided to withdraw the instructions issued dt 17.05.2000 and that all cases where seniors were adversely affected by implementation of BCR scheme placing their juniors in the next higher scale of pay would be VIVEK RAWAT

decided in terms of the instructions issued vide letters dt 18.02.1996, 05.08.1997 and 01.01.1998

7. Pursuant to this letter of the Directorate, the CPMG, UP Circle issued a letter dt 02.07.2017 asking for Service Book, Special Report, Vigilance clearance and CR dossiers of the 113 officials of the SBCO cadre who had represented for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP/BCR scheme at par with their juniors. Further, a letter dt 12.09.2017 was issued granting, after the review DPC, BCR to 113 officials. Cases of 8 officials were not considered due to incomplete service records.

8. The Respondents have in their reply said that the case of the applicant cannot be considered at this belated stage as her service book has been weeded out as per the period of preservation, 3 years after retirement. They have also said that the first representation of the Applicant was received only on 26.07.2018, after a lapse of more than 8 years.

9. Since the letter of the Department amending the instructions of granting TBOP/BCR to senior persons if juniors had got the same, was issued only on 08.05.2017, it is not clear how the applicant could have sent a representation earlier than that especially during the period her service records were preserved? The cause of action arose only after the matter was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.02.2017 after which the Departmental instructions dt 08.05.2017 were issued. The Applicant had retired on 30.04.2010 and could only know of the revised instructions when someone would have informed her and she would have got to know that persons junior to her have been given the scale as per the new orders. A seniority list of PA(SBCO) of UP Circle has been issued on 11.05.2007 which has been enclosed by the applicant in Annex A-2 of the OA. As per this seniority list, the Applicant is placed at S. No 229 and and one Sri Ram is at S.No.253. Vide letter No. STA/441-XS/Review of TBOP-BCR/SBCO/10 dt 12.09.2017, financial upgradation has been given to Sh. Sriram (S.No.112), after his retirement. Since as per the seniority VIVEK RAWAT

list the applicant was placed above Sh, Sriram, as per orders, she also deserves the benefit of financial upgradation.

10. While, it is appreciated that it would be difficult to process the case of the applicant in the absence of service book and other records necessary for according financial upgradation, however, it is not right to deprive an official of the financial upgradation which he/she otherwise deserved just because the official has retired and service book is weeded out.

11. The Respondents are therefore directed to try and reconstruct the necessary documents required for processing the case of financial upgradation on the basis of records of some officials immediate senior or junior to the Applicant which could be present in the office and also if the Applicant has some copies of her official records, the same may be submitted to the Respondents for reconstructing the record. The right of a retired employee for financial benefit due, which would also have an effect on the pension cannot be liquidated just because of non availability or destruction of a service book and all out efforts should be made for reconstruction of the same, to the extent possible. If the Respondents with the help of the Applicant are able to reconstruct the Service particulars necessary, the case be considered for giving financial upgradation wef the date her junior got the same with all consequential benefits. The said exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12. No order as to cost. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.

(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)

Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)

/M.M/ VIVEK RAWAT