Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Postmaster, vs B.Venkateswaralu on 4 October, 2024
APHC010255732013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3470]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 4443/2013
Between:
The Superintendent Of Post Offices, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
K Gandhi ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel)
2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. K PHANI RAJU
WRIT PETITION NO: 18188/2012
Between:
The Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Sri K Pitchaiah ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
2
WRIT PETITION NO: 28151/2012
Between:
The Postmaster, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
B Venkateswaralu ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. .
2. P VENKATA RAMA SARMA
WRIT PETITION NO: 36176/2012
Between:
The Director General Posts and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Sri Ch S R Mohanarao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
And
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.Nos.4443 of 2013, 18188, 28151 & 36176 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)
1. The W.P.Nos.4443 of 2013 & 28151 of 2012 were filed
questioning the Order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.No.38 of 2007 and
O.A.No.119 of 2006 respectively.
2. The W.P.Nos.18188 of 2012 & 36176 of 2012 were filed
questioning the Order 21.09.2011 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.No.260 of 2006 and
O.A.No.06 of 2005 respectively.
3. As the issue in all the O.As/W.Ps, being common,
a Common Order is being passed in all these Writ Petitions.
4. The issue that falls for consideration is with regard to the
entitlement of the applicants/respondents for grant of retirement
benefits on the basis of emoluments drawn for the period they
worked in HSG-I scale prior to retirement.
5. The facts in W.P.No.4443 of 2012 in brief are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on
16.07.1965 and was confirmed in the said post on 01.03.1968.
The applicant was promoted on 30.11.1983 to OTBP and to BCR
cadres on 03.10.1991. The applicant was further promoted as HSG-I
Post Master, Chodavaram H.O., w.e.f. 01.08.2003 in the scale of
Rs.6500-200-10500 vide Memo No.B/1/6-2/2003-04, dated
10.09.2003. Consequently, the pay of the applicant was fixed at
Rs.9,700/- till his retirement on 30.06.2004. The grievance of the
petitioner was that the pension was not fixed on the basis of the
emoluments drawn in the HSG-I Postmaster scale.
6. The facts in W.P.No.28151 of 2012 in brief are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on
26.07.1965 and was given BCR promotion w.e.f. 01.10.1991 on
completion of 26 years of service. The applicant was posted as
Postmaster, Chirala Head Post Office on ad hoc basis vide Memo
dated 01.10.2004 and accordingly the applicant worked in the said
post from 08.10.2004 to 30.05.2005 and his pay was fixed at
Rs.7,900/- in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500. On the basis of
internal check report 9/2005 of Chirala H.O., the proceedings were
issued for recovery of excess salary of Rs.5,323/- paid to the
applicant on account of wrong fixation of Rs.7,900/-.
7. The facts in W.P.No.18188 of 2012 in brief are as follows:
The applicant was appointed in the Department of Posts on
01.12.1964. While working as Sub-Postmaster (LSG & BCR Official),
Prakasam Bhavan, TSO, Ongole, the applicant was promoted and
posted as HSG-I Postmaster, Ongole Head Office on ad hoc basis
vide Memo No.B/Misc., dated 23.07.2003. The applicant continued
in the said post till his retirement on 30.06.2005. It is the grievance of
the petitioner that the pensionary benefits are to be calculated on the
basis of scale attached to HSG-I Post.
8. The facts in W.P.No.36176 of 2012 in brief are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as Postman on 01.08.1966 and
was further promoted as Time Scale Clerk (now called as "Postal
Assistant") on 30.07.1974 on passing the Departmental examination.
The applicant was granted financial up-gradation under
OTBP Scheme on 30.07.1990 and second financial up-gradation
under Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) on 01.07.2000 after completion
of 16 and 26 years of qualifying service respectively. Subsequently,
the applicant was promoted to the cadre of Norm Based LSG Post
under Fast Track Scheme on 19.10.2003 and was posted as Public
Relations Inspector (Postal, Machilipatnam HPO) vide Memo dated
09.10.2003. The applicant sought for officiating pay and allowance
for the period he officiated in the post of Deputy Postmaster,
Machilipatnam HO, in HSG-I Grade for the period 20.10.2003 to
29.02.2004 in the scale of Rs.6500-10500.
9. All the applicants relied on Judgment of Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai in its order dated 15.03.2004 in O.A.No.679 of
2003 as confirmed by the Madras High Court in W.P.No.27062 of
2004 dated 24.09.2004. The SLP filed by the Department thereon
was numbered as Civil Appeal No.852 of 2006 and the same was
dismissed on 09.03.2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The respondents/writ petitioners opposed the reliefs on the
ground that the period they officiated in HSG-I cadre is on ad hoc
basis and for a short tenure. As such, it is the case of the
Department that the applicants are not entitled for the pay in the
scale of HSG-I to be the basis for their pensionary benefits. It was
also contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court though had
dismissed the Civil Appeal considering the facts of the case, but had
expressed its reservations in the manner the Tribunal and the
Hon'ble High Court had disposed of the case. It was also contended
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had left the question of law for its
consideration in an appropriate case. The various other pleadings
are not relevant for the purpose of this case.
11. The Central Administrative Tribunal taking into consideration
the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and
Madras High Court and held that the applicants would be entitled for
the scale of HSG-I Grade for the period they had worked and
consequential relief of revision of pensioner benefits. Hence, the
present Writ Petitions are filed.
12. Heard Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, Central Government Counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri P.Venkata Rama Sarma,
learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.28151 of 2012.
13. This issue as to whether the similarly placed applicants were
entitled for revision of pensionary benefits for the ad hoc/temporary
officiation in HSG-I Grade prior to retirement was considered by this
Court in W.P.No.19718 of 2012 dated 20.09.2024. The issue for
consideration in the said case was referred at Paragraph 18 thereof
and the same reads as under:-
"......The further question is whether for the officiating period on HSG-I
post the respondent can be entitled for payment of such post and
based on ten months salary drawn on HSG-I, his pension and retiral
benefits are liable to be fixed accordingly."
14. In the said case, the applicant therein had officiated in the
cadre of HSG-I Grade from 04.10.2004 to 03.12.2004 and
subsequently till his retirement on 31.05.2005. This Court after
thorough examination of the above referred Judgments/Office
Memorandums and instructions set-aside the Order of the Tribunal
and allowed the Writ Petition holding that the applicant/employee
cannot seek for re-fixation of his pensionary benefits on the basis of
temporary/ad hoc officiation in the cadre of HSG-I. The Paragraphs
37, 38 and 39 of the Order are extracted below:-
"37. In the present case, therefore, applying Selvaraj (supra) and Hari Om
Sharma (supra), the respondent at the most may be entitled to the salary of
that post (HSG-I), only for the period he officiated in that post. But, based on
such officiation, his pensionary benefits or retiral benefits cannot be fixed.
38. We find that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the settled legal
position and deserves to be set aside.
39. We set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allow this writ
petition in part, providing however that the respondent would be entitled
only for the difference of salary, for the period of his officiation on the post
of HSG-1, but only for the period he officiated. The difference paid to the
respondent as mentioned, for which recovery order was passed, shall not be
enforced against the respondent and if the amount has already been
recovered, the same shall be refunded to the respondent."
15. This Court in the above quoted Judgment had considered
the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary-cum-
Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma1, Ramakant
Shripadi Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of Inida2, R.Kuppuswamy v.
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal3 and
K.Kandaswamy v. Union of India4.
(1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 87
AIR 1991 SC 1145
W.P.No.15512 of 2013 decided on 13.08.2014
1995 SCC (6) 162
16. Apart from the Judgments, this Court also referred to Office
Memorandums issued by the DOPT, Govt. of India on 04.12.2003
and 27.07.2005 and the instructions of Director General of Posts
dated 12.11.2002 respectively. The observations of Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the Department
questioning the Judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai and Madras High Court were also considered at
Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Order.
17. The facts in these Writ Petitions as narrated above are
squarely covered by the Order of this Court in W.P.No.19718 of
2012, dated 20.09.2024.
18. The applicants are not entitled for revision of pensionary
benefits on the basis of their temporary officiation in HSG-I. In the
light of the above, the Order of the Tribunal granting revision of
pensionary benefits is set-aside. However, the petitioners are
entitled for the difference of salary for the period of their officiation
in the post of HSG-I only.
19. The Writ Petitions are therefore allowed-in-part.
No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
_________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 04.10.2024
IS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
And
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.Nos.4443 of 2013, 18188, 28151 & 36176 of 2012
Date: 04.10.2024
IS
