1. Order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench is called in question in this writ petition filed by the Union of India.
2. The Tribunal while allowing the application filed by the respondent - Basanna Nayak has held that he was appointed initially to Group-D post in the year 1983 and was later on appointed again in the cadre of Postman in 1987 and thereafter based on a limited competitive examination conducted in 1988 was appointed as Postal Assistant with effect from 23.03.1989 Therefore, even though he was given TBOP benefit on completion of 16 years of service in the cadre of Postal Assistant in August, 2005, having regard to the long service rendered by him without promotional avenues, he was entitled for second financial upgradation under MACP with effect from 13.09.2009
3. Indeed the authorities had rightly extended to the applicant this benefit vide order dated 02.08.2010 Annexure-A5. But, the said benefit was sought to be withdrawn on 20.01.2014 as is evident from Annexure-A10. While doing so, the petitioner - authority namely Senior Superintendent of Post, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga reckoned the post of Postman and the post of Postal Assistant to which petitioner was appointed as promotional posts and treated him as having been duly promoted as Postman and Postal Assistant on 12.10.1987 and 30.07.1989 respectively. Therefore, on the process of reasoning that applicant had already been given two promotions in his career apart from the benefit of TBOP on 13.08.2005, he was held not entitled for financial up gradation in MACP on completion of 20 years of his service as Postal Assistant.
4. This order was challenged by the applicant before the Central Administiative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, as already referred to above, has held that appointment of petitioner as Postman on 12.10.1987 was not by way of promotion. It has also further held that further appointment of the petitioner as Postal Assistant on 30.07.1989 was by way of direct recruitment after conducting competitive examination. Therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that applicant had been rightly extended benefit of career progression and there was absolutely no justification for withdrawing/revoking the same.
5. The Tribunal has also referred to similar orders passed earlier in similar circumstances by different Benches which were challenged before the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 11336/2012. The High Court of Rajasthan has upheld the said orders. In para-12 of the impugned order the Tribunal has referred to the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court. Again the High Court of Delhi has passed another order in WP (C) 4131/2014 in the case of Union of India v. Shakeel Ahmed Burney wherein also similar view taken by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has been upheld by the High Court vide its order dated 05.08.2014
6. The contention now advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that appointment of petitioner for the post of Postman and Postal Assistant were not by way of direct recruitment but were by way of promotion. We are unable to appreciate this contention. Indeed as per Annexure-A2 order where under appointment has been made to the cadre of Postman it is clearly mentioned that the appointment formalities like verification of caste and educational qualifications etc. shall be completed as usual before issuance of orders of appointment. There is no mention made with regard to promotion of the respondent to the post of Postman. A reading of Annexure-A2 discloses that it was not a case of promotion but was a case of direct recruitment.
7. In so far as appointment to the post of Postal Assistant, the findings of the Tribunal are very clear inasmuch as the recruitment was made after conducting a limited departmental competitive examination and that there was nothing to show that respondent was promoted from the cadre of Postman to the next cadre of Postal Assistant.
8. Hence, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. We do not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded and conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Therefore, there being no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed.