Sangeet Lodha, J.:— This petition is directed against order dated 11.5.07 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) on completion of 12 years of service on the post of Inspector of Posts.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner entered the services of the respondents as Postal Assistant on 23.2.78 In the year 1983, he appeared in the limited Departmental Competitive Examination for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Post Offices/RMS. On being declared successful, he was appointed as Inspector of Posts on 26.7.84
3. The Government of India with a view to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employee due to lack of adequate promotion avenues introduced ACP Scheme on 9.8.99, which provides two financial upgradations on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, counted against regular promotion availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as direct recruit. Two financial upgradations under the Scheme are available to the employee only if no regular promotions during the prescribed period (12 and 24 years) have been availed. If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case, two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under ACP Scheme shall accrue to him.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the departmental authorities while misinterpreting the Scheme, treated the post of Postal Assistant as feeder post in the channel of promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts and thus, treating the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Inspector of Posts as regular promotion for the purpose of grant of benefit under ACP Scheme, did not consider him for grant of benefits of first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of 12 years of service on the post of Inspector of Posts. The representation made by the petitioner raising the grievance was not considered by the respondents and therefore, he preferred Original Application No. 83/03 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.5.04 with the directions to the respondents to decide the representation within three months. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Director (Staff), Department of Posts, Government of India, vide letter dated 30.8.04, holding that the ACP Scheme does not indicate that the Inspector Grade is a direct entry grade and further that the promotion through limited Departmental Competitive Examination is treated as promotion for the purpose of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme and past services to be counted for granting ACP.
5. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim as aforesaid, vide letter dated 30.8.04, the petitioner preferred yet another Original Application before the Tribunal, seeking directions to the respondents to grant first financial up-gradation in the scale of Rs. 6500-10,000 after 12 years of regular service as Inspector of Posts and second financial up-gradation in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12,000 after completion of 24 years of regular service in the Inspector cadre, treating the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Inspector of Posts as direct recruitment and not promotion.
6. The Tribunal arrived at the finding that on being appointed as Inspector of Posts on the basis of the Departmental Competitive Examination conducted in the year 1983, the petitioner has got one regular promotion on 26.7.84 and therefore, he is entitled only to second financial up-gradation after completion of 24 years of service from the date of initial entry as per extant rules. Accordingly, the Original Application preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed by the Tribunal with the directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for second financial upgradation as per extant rules, in case, the petitioner qualifies and found eligible on all accounts. Hence, this petition.
7. It is to be noticed that in compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal as aforesaid, vide order dated 11.5.97, the petitioner's case for grant of second financial up-gradation on completion of 24 years of service was considered by the Review Screening Committee, however, the petitioner was not found eligible for the grant of second up-gradation keeping in view the overall CR grading of the petitioner for the relevant period and the penalties of censure imposed twice.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Postal Assistants do not have multiple channel of promotion, they have only one channel of promotion to the post of LSG and from LSG to HSG II. It is submitted that the promotion earned by competitive examination on the post of Inspector of Posts is open to all and sundry grades fulfilling the requisite eligibility condition and it cannot be construed in regular line/channel of promotion for Postal Assistants. Learned counsel submitted that the Inspector of Posts is not functional promotion post for the post of Postal Assistant and therefore, one who is holding the post of Postal Assistant cannot be granted financial up-gradation in the scale meant for post of Inspector of Posts as per para 7 of conditions for grant of ACP benefits and thus, the Tribunal has apparently erred in treating the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Posts as regular promotion so as to deny him the consideration for grant of first financial up-gradation on completion of 12 years of service on the post of Inspector of Posts. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this court dated 10.8.15 rendered in “Union of India v. Har Govind Sharma” (D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11709/13 and 22 others).
9. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the ACP Scheme, it is nowhere provided that promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts through limited Departmental Competitive Examination shall be treated as direct entry. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the clarification no. 8 and 24 (a) issued by the Department of Personnel & Training vide Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, which clarifies that promotion through departmental examinations are to be treated as promotion for the purpose of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme. It is submitted that the regular line of promotion of Postal Assistant is to LSG, HSG II and HSG I but they are also eligible to appear in the limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts and therefore, the same has to be treated as promotion for the purpose of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme and the past services to be counted for granting ACP. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Posts has to be treated as regular promotion in terms of ACP Scheme and thus, the petitioner having availed one promotion, is entitled for consideration for grant of benefits of second upgradation on completion of 24 years of service under the ACP Scheme.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. Indisputably, the Inspector of Posts and Inspector of RMS were merged into a single cadre and thus, the new combined cadre of Inspector of Posts came into existence. As per the provisions of the Department of Posts Inspector of Posts Recruitment Rules, 2001 (for short “the Rules”), the posts of Inspector of Posts are required to be filled in, in the ratio of 33.34% by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission and 66.66% by way of promotion through limited Departmental Competitive Examination. It is true that the Inspector of Posts by way of promotion is not recruited from a single lower cadre/grade/scale of the Postal Assistant only but, from among various cadres/grade/scale like Stenographers, LDC, Staff of Director of Postal Account also, but then, on that account, the channel of promotion provided, may be by way of limited Departmental Competitive Examination, shall not cease to be a channel of promotion provided to the employees holding the posts specified. In other words, merely because, the post of Inspector of Posts by promotion is filled in by way of limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the employees holding the posts specified, their promotion to the post cannot be treated as direct entry. A bare perusal of the ACP Scheme and the clarification issued by the Government of India, makes it abundantly clear that for grant of two financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, the entire government service of an employee shall be counted against regular promotion including the promotion through limited Departmental Competitive Examination availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as direct recruit. We are of the considered opinion that where the rules specifically provides for promotion quota, may be to be filled in by way of limited Departmental Competitive Examination, the promotions made by the method specified as aforesaid, has to be counted as promotion for the purpose of ACP Scheme. Thus, the petitioner herein, who has already availed one regular promotion shall be entitled for consideration of his case for the purpose of second financial up-gradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction.
12. Coming to the Bench decision of this court in Har Govind's case (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noticed that in the said case, where the employees had entered into services of the respondent therein on being appointed as Mail Guards/Extra Departmental Agents/Gram Dak Sewaks and while in service, faced process of selection for appointment to the post of Sorting Assistants/Postal Assistants and were appointed on the said posts, in absence of any provision under the Rules, showing that the appointment to the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant are made by way of promotion, the court held that such appointment may be by way of limited Competitive Examination has to be treated as appointment by direct recruitment.
13. As noticed hereinabove, in the instant case, it is specifically provided under the Rules that 66.66% posts of the Inspector of Posts shall be filled in by way of promotion through limited Departmental Competitive Examination and thus, the Bench decision of this court in Har Govind's case (supra) does not help the petitioner in any manner.
14. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Comments