UNION OF INDIA Vs. M. BHAGYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06 -07 -2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1089 of 2010.

(2.) The indisputable facts are that the first respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal was working as Lower Selection Grade ('LSG' in short) official and was given financial upgradation under Biennial Cadre Review ('BCR'in short) Scheme. While she was working as the Assistant Sub -Post Master in High Court Building SO in Chennai, she was directed to look after the duties of Higher Selection Grade - I ('HSG -I' in short), Sub Postmaster, Sowcarpet Mail Delivery Sub Post Office, during the spells, 01 -03 -2004 to 24 -06 -2005, 29 -06 -2005 to 23 -11 -2005, 28 -11 -2005 to 03 -04 -2006, 19 -04 -2006 to 31 -05 -2006 by the fourth petitioner herein. The first respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 -5 -2006, while looking after the duties of HSG -I. The first respondent thereafter, preferred an application before the Tribunal, seeking a direction to the writ petitioners herein to revise her pensionary benefits on the basis of pay and allowance fixed on the post of HSG -I, during the period 01 -08 -2005 to 31 -05 -2006 in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 11 -12 -2008. The first respondent also asked for setting aside the communcation dated 19 -11 -2009 sent by the General Manager (Postal Accounts and Finance) Chennai intimating her that pensionary benefits will be settled on BCR Scheme on receipt of reply from the Directorate, New Delhi. The Tribunal having considered all the aspects of the matter and relying on Office Memorandum dated 11 -12 -2008 held that the first respondent was entitled to pension on the last pay drawn as on 31 -05 -2006. It was further directed to issue the necessary pension order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition was preferred by the respondents therein.

(3.) This Court granted ex -parte stay of the operation of the impugned order on 05 -08 -2014. The indisputable facts are that the first respondent was working as LSG Official and due to non -availability of eligible qualifying person in HSG II Cadre, she was asked to look after the office of the HSG -I cadre, Sub Postmaster, Sowcarpet Mail Delivery Sub Post Office. Needless to state that under Rules for promotion to the post of HSG -I, the requisite qualification is working as HSG -II or Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices in the ratio of 50:50; In case of promotion from HSG -II, the official must have completed three years of regular service in the grade. There is no dispute that the first respondent was not qualified to be appointed as HSG -I.