Ahmedabad CAT Order – The post of Postal Assistant is not a promotional post for the post of Postman through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) under MACP Scheme

Ahmedabad CAT Order – The post of Postal Assistant is not a promotional post for the post of Postman through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) under MACP Scheme

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AMHEDABAD BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Original Application Nos.93/19, 94/19, 95/19, 96/19, 97/19, 98/19, 99/19, 100/19, 101/19, 102/19, 103/19, 104/19, 105/19, 106/19, 107/19, 108/19, 109/19, 110/19, 111/19, 112/19, 113/19, 114/19, 115/19, 116/19, 118/19, 119/19, 136/19, 137/19, 138/19, OA 491/16, OA 273/18, OA 90/18, OA 121/18, OA 375/17, OA 91/18, OA 95/18, 157/18, 299/18, 94/18, 209/18, 96/18, 120/18, 92/18, 93/18, 282/18, 208/18, 503/17, 167/18, 122/18, 97/18, 119/18 and 86/18.

CORAM :

Reserved on : 24.07.2019 Pronounced on : 17.09.2019

Hon’ble Shri Pradeep Kumar, Member(Administrative)
Hon’ble Shri M.C.Verma, Member (Judicial)

…………………….
…………………….
…………………….

Present :

For Applicants : By Advocate(s) : Mr. A.D.Vankar,
Mr. Joy Mathew & Ms. Vilas Purani.

For Respondents : By Advocate : Ms R. R. Patel

(ORDER)

Per : Shri M C Verma, Judicial Member

1. Grievances of applicants of some OAs of this set are that TBOP/ BCR/ MACP granted earlier to them has been cancelled and adjusted as set off treating the post of Postal Assistant as promotion post of Postman whereas grievances of applicants of rest OAs of this set are that treating the post of Postal Assistant as promotion post of Postman they were not granted their due MACP. It is the contention of each applicants of this set of 52 OAs that the post of Postal Assistant is not a promotional post for the post of Postman whereas the stand of respondents is that it is a promotional post and that entry from Postman cadre to Postal Assistant has rightly been adjusted and set off against TBOP / BCR/MACP.

2. As the outcome of all OA of this set would be a direct sequetur of the controversy, namely „whether the post of Postal Assistant is a promotional post for the post of Postman‟, hence all these OAs were heard together and a common Order is being passed. As far as facual aspect qua joining of post of Post Man or of Postal Assistant etc. relates, the same are undisputed.

3. A note of written arguments signed by Sh. A.D. Vanker Advocate , who is appearing for applicants of 17 OAs (O.A. Nos. 375/2017, 503/2017 90 to 97, 119 to 122, 167, 208, 209 of 2018), by Sh. Joy Mathew Advocate, who is appearing for applicant of thirty OAs (OA Nos. 491 of 2016, 93 to 116, 118, 119, 136 to 138 of 2019) and by Ms. Vilas Purani, Advocate, who is appearing for applicants of five OAs (O.A. No. 86, 157, 273, 282 and 299/2018) have been submitted. In addition to said Joint Note of written arguments learned counsel Sh. A.D. Vankar has also placed on record an another written note of submissions and has placed reliance on pleas taken therein also.

4. Learned counsel Shri Vanker orally has submitted that entry from cadre of Postman to Postal Assistant is by way of selection and applicants did pass Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and therefore it is not a promotion. He urged that under MACP Scheme, for grant of MACP, entry from cadre of Postman to Postal Assistant was required to be ignored. He, to fortify his submission placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Madras High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 30629/2014 and added that decision passed in said Writ Petition was also impugned on the file of Hon‟ble Supreme Court and Hon‟ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP. He explaining factual data‟s, submitted that the applicants were recruited against 50% quota reserved for departmental candidates for this LDCE Examination for the post of Postal Assistant and they were entitled for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, Rs. 4200/- and Rs. 4600/- on eve grant of 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACP respectively and, therefore grant of Grade Pay only of Rs. 4200/- for 3rd MACP to them is discriminatory and against the Rules.

5. Learned Counsel Sh. Joy Mathew adopting the submissions of Mr. Vanker Advocate that entry from cadre of Postman to Postal Assistant by way of passing LDCE is not a promotion post, has also urged that there is no promotion avenue in the cadre of Postman and that Postman is not the feeder cadre of the post of Postal Assistant. That the selection of Postal Assistant is not made from feeder category of Postman alone and several other categories of employees are also eligible to appear in said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). He also argued that the post of Postal Assistant is an ex cadre post of Postman and, therefore, selection is not in the hierarchy line of Postman and thus cannot be said to be a promotion in the eye of law. He, placing reliance on judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court titled Director General, Rice Research Institute, Cuttack & Anr. Vs. Khetra Mohan Das [1994 (5) SLR 728 contended that promotion is different from fitment by way of rationalisation and initial adjustment and that the promotion means, appointment of a person of any category or grade of a service or a class of service to a higher category or grade or such service or class. He also stressed that several coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well some High Courts have held that post of Postal Assistant is not a promotional post for the post of Postman.

6. Learned counsel Ms. Vilas Purani while adopting the submissions made at Bar by learned counsel Sh. A.D.Vankar Advocate and by learned counsel Sh. Joy Mathew Advocate has added that in identical matters, both on facts and on law, the coordinate Benches and some High Courts have taken the view that entry from cadre of Postman to Postal Assistant by way of passing LDCE is not a promotion. She referred decision dated 22.05.2012 passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Rajasthan in case titled – Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Regar in Writ Petition No. 11336/2012, decision dated 04.02.2015 passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in UOI Vs D. Sivakumar in Writ Petition No. 30629/2014, judgment of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal passed in case titled P.G. Mathad Vs. Department of Posts in OA No. 952/2016 and urged that contrary view would not be legal.