R. KUPPUSWAMY Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as a Postal Assistant on 19.10.1968. On the completion of 16 years of qualifying service, he was given financial up -gradation under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme with effect from 19.10.1984. Thereafter on completion of 26 years of service, he was given financial up -gradation under Biennial Cadre Review Scheme on 01.01.1995. He was further promoted to the lower Selection Grade -I on regular basis with effect from 05.01.2006 and was posted as Assistant Postmaster (Lower Selection Grade), Tindivanam Head Post Office in Pondicherry Division. As per Posts and Telegraphs (Selection Grade Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1976, for Higher Selection Grade -I post, the feeder category is the Higher Selection Grade -II officials with three years of service as on the first January of crucial year. It is also the position with respect to ad hoc promotion/officiating arrangement to Higher Selection Grade I Cadre. The petitioner was not given any ad hoc promotion to the Higher Selection Grade Cadre -I by the respondents. Since the post of Higher Section Grade -I Postmaster, Tindivanam Head Post Office, was vacant, purely on a local arrangement for the functional necessity, the fourth respondent in and by the Memo dated 10.01.2006, directed the petitioner to work in the said post. While working so as Higher Selection Grade -I Postmaster, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.01.2006. The petitioner filed an application in O.A. No. 1148 or 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, claiming fixation of pay and other benefits taking into account of the last drawn pay drawn in Higher Selection Grade -I pay. The Tribunal, in and by the order dated 26.02.2013, dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was only asked to discharge the duties of Higher Selection Grade -I as a stop gap arrangement and since he has not completed three years regular service as Higher Selection Grade -I, he is not entitled for the relief. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Official Memorandum, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. When there is no dispute that the petitioner was discharging the work in the post of Higher Selection Grade -I Postmaster, the benefits due to him for the said post cannot be denied. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has made reliance upon the following judgments.

(3.) UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER (W.P. No. 22202 OF 2005 dated 23.10.2008);