ANNAPURNA S. JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above application is filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) PER contra the respondents have filed reply statement and admitted the fact that the applicant was promoted to the cadre of LSG and posted as APM, Hubli HO vide order dated 19.1.2007. But the applicant declined his promotion vide his declination letter dated 19.2.2007. The applicant was again promoted to the cadre of LSG and posted as APM Accounts Mangalore HO vide order dated 24.4.2008 and this promotion was also declined by the applicant vide her letter dated 2.5.2008. Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) has been introduced in the Department of Posts vide Directorate letter No. 4 -7/M ACPs/2009 -PCC dated 18.9.2009. The scheme is effective from 1.9.2008. After implementation of MACP scheme, the first DPC for the promotion of officials under MACPs who had completed 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service was held at PSB Hubli on 19.6.2010. The case of the applicant who retired as accountant was also taken into consideration in the DPC for MACP -III promotion. In terms of DOPT OM dated 19.5.2009, in Annexure -1 item No. 25, if a regular promotion has been offered but was refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, no financial upgradation shall be allowed, as such an employee has not been stagnated due to lack of opportunities. Since the applicant has declined the promotion under LSG during May 2008 and as such his case was not considered for promotion under MACP III during the DPC held on 19.6.2010 as the applicant had declined LSG promotion on 19.2.2007. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has issued a letter dated 17.3.2011 clarifying that the decision taken by the DPC held on 19.6.2010 is in order, since the applicant has declined the LSG promotion on 19.1.2007 and 2.5.2008 and she was in the embargo period when she retired from service on 31.3.2009. As applicant had declined promotion before becoming entitled for MACP i.e., on 1.9.2008 and applicant was still in embargo period, applicant is not eligible for grant of MACP benefits as per the provisions of para 25 of Annexure -I of Directorate letter dated 18.9.2009. The applicant not satisfied with the reply of SPOs Haveri Dn Haveri dated 23.8.2010 appealed to the Postmaster General NK Region, Dharwad (Respondent No. 3) vide her representation dated 14.2.2011 to consider her for MACP -III promotion. In response to her appeal, she was replied vide letter No. NKR/STA -1/290/MACPs/HVI dated 17.3.2011 as the decision taken by the DPC held at Haveri division is in order since she had declined the LSG promotion before implementation of MACP scheme as per Rules on the subject. The applicant not satisfied with the reply of respondent No. 2 appealed to CPMG, Karnataka Circle Bangalore vide her representation dated 2.6.2011 to consider her promotion to MACP -III. The CPMG also replied under letter No. STA/4 -3/MACP/Repn dated 21.6.2011 addressed to SPOs Haveri Dn, that the applicant had declined LSG (A/cs) line promotion on 2.5.2008 and she was in the embargo period when she retired on 31.3.2009. As she had declined promotion before becoming entitled for MACP i.e., on 1.9.2008 and as she was still in the period of embargo, she is not eligible for grant of MACP benefits as per the provisions of Para 25 of Annexure -1 of Directorate letter dated 18.9.2009. The same copy of the letter was forwarded to the above applicant vide SPOs Haveri Division Haveri office letter No. HVR/B2/MACP/Digs/II dated 27.6.2011. The respondents have supported the impugned order and requested for dismissal of OA.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the pleadings available on record and the judgment of the CAT, Madras Bench of this Tribunal - Mrs. P.C. Revathy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), as per Annexure A15 published in Swamy's News, July, 2008. After careful consideration of the pleadings it is evident that the applicant was promoted to the cadre of LSG in Accounts line vide order dated 6.2.2007 but the applicant declined her promotion vide her declination letter dated 16.2.2007, 19.1.2007 and 2.5.2008 that has been accepted by the 2nd respondent. We have carefully gone through Annexure -I Item No. 25 of DOPT OM dated 19.5.2009. According to the said item No. 25, if a regular promotion has been offered that was refused by the employee before becoming entitled to the eligible financial upgradation, no financial upgradation shall be allowed as such the employee has not been stagnated to lack of opportunities. If, however, financial upgradation has been allowed due to stagnation and the employee subsequently refused promotion it shall not be a ground to withdraw the financial upgradation. The respondents admit that the financial upgradation under the MACP is purely personal to the employee and has no relevance to the seniority position. Since the applicant declined the LSG promotion prior to due date of MACP accordingly, the applicant is not eligible for financial upgradation. The grievance of the applicant is that she is eligible for financial upgradation from the date immediately after completion of 30 years though she declined for promotion that will not come in the way of grant of MACP. This issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in OA No. 983 to 985/2012 dated 2.7.2013 -Sobananda & Others v. Union of India & Others. Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: -