D.C.MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 03.01.2005 as well as the subsequent order dated 11.01.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No.329 of 2000.

(2.) THE brief fact as narrated in this writ petition is that : -

(3.) THE aforesaid modification was further changed by fresh Circulars dated 1.1.1998 and 5.8.1997, under Annexures -3 and 4 respectively. As indicated in Annexure -4 a decision was taken that all the officials such as Upper Division Clerks in the Circle Office and SBCO, LSG (both 1/3rd) PO and RMS Accounts be considered for next higher scale of pay from the date their immediate juniors became eligible for the next higher scale. It was further decided that the Upper Division Clerks who were working in Circle Offices and Regional Offices on or before 26.6.1993 would be entitled for fitment in the TBOP/BCR scale with reference to the date of promotion of Lower Division Clerk in the respective Grade, if the Lower Division Clerk had been brought on transfer under Rule -38 of Post and Telegraph Manual Vol -IV on or before 26.6.1993 and was still working as such on that date. The aforesaid Circular, as mentioned earlier, was implemented through out the country and the benefits of the fitments in the scale of pay under the BCR Scheme dated 1.1.1998 were given. Employees of the Postal Department in the States of Orissa, West Bengal, Delhi, Gujarat working as Upper Division Clerks were given the benefits of TBOP/BCR, i.e., advance scale of pay basing on the Circulars dated 8.2.1996 and 1.1.1998, in spite of the fact that they had not completed 16/26 years of service. Since the present petitioners were deprived of the said benefits, they filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the circular dated 17.5.2000 whereby all other earlier Circulars of 8.2.1996, 5.8.1997 and 1.1.1998 were superseded and a decision was taken that extension of benefits under TBOP/BCR schemes is not promotion which depends only on length of service and it was further stated that cases already decided would not be re -opened and cases which had not been decided would be settled as per the instructions contained therein. The opp.parties before the Tribunal took the stand that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefits of one time higher scale of pay under BCR scheme on the basis of Circular dated 17.5.2000 and their further stand was that the BCR Scheme is not a promotion, but simply placement at next higher scale of pay. Furthermore, the opp.parties took the stand that transfer of opp.party No.4 was irregular so also the benefit given to him. The matter was referred to the Full Bench of the Tribunal. It is worthwhile to mention here that during pendency of the application before the Tribunal, the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench and Madras Bench were carried to the Apex Court. The Apex Court rendered the judgment, by the time the matter was taken up by the Full Bench of the C.A.T., in Union of India and others v. Leelamma Jacob and others in Civil Appeal No.10692 of 1995 on 10.9.2002. By the date the matter was pending before Full Bench of the Tribunal, the apex Court had already decided the case of Leelamma Jacobs (Supra). The same was referred to by the Division Bench before the Full Bench of the Tribunal but the Full Bench relying on the decision of State of U.P. and other v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., and another (1991) 4 SCC 139 held that the ratio decided in Leelamma Jacobs case (supra) was not applicable to that case.