UNION OF INDIA Vs. V N BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 21749 of 1997.

(2.) As identical questions of fact and law being involved in these appeals, we therefore, propose to dispose of these matters by this common order. However, for appreciating the controversy, we are referring the facts asserted in Civil Appeal No. 8375 of 1997.

(3.) The respondent was previously working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Ministry of Defence since the year1962. He sought transfer from the Ministry of Defence to the office of the Chief Post Master General. The Directorate, by an order dated 26th April, 1982, allowed the aforesaid transfer, as a result of which the respondent joined the service in the Postal Department on 24th May, 1982 as Lower Division Clerk. He took the seniority at the bottom of the gradation list as per departmental rules. On 17th December,1983, the appellants herein introduced the time bound promotion scheme to the operative cadres in the Post and Telegraph Department, for providing relief to the employees stagnating in the lower grades by improving their promotional avenues. The Postal Department decided to extend 'One Time Bound Promotion Scheme' and 'B.C.R. Scheme' for those employees who have rendered 16 years and 26 years of service as Postal Assistant respectively. These schemes were applicable to the administrative staff working in the Circle Office and to the office in which the respondent was working by converting the posts of Lower Division Clerks into Postal Assistant. The respondent was given the benefit of the said scheme and his post was converted to that of Postal Assistant. Subsequently, on an enquiry from the Postal Directorate by the Department of Posts, a clarification was received on 8th June, 1994, wherein it was stated that these schemes will be operative only in regard to the officials who have rendered service of 16/26 years in the Postal Department. As per this clarification, the benefit under the B.C.R. Scheme given to the respondent was withdrawn and he was reverted to the post earlier held by him. It is under such circumstances, the respondent on 15th November, 1996, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, challenging his withdrawal of one time bound promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned order allowed the application and set aside the order of withdrawal of one time bound promotion given to the respondent. It is against the said order and judgment of the Tribunal, the Union of India is in appeal before us.