Karnataka High Court

Union Of India And Ors vs Bhimaraya V Kattimani S/O ... on 5 July, 2022

Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, S Rachaiah

                              1



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                         PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                            AND

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

     WRIT PETITION NO.226631/2020 (S-CAT)
                     C/W
     WRIT PETITION NO.226627/2020 (S-CAT)

In W.P.No.226631/2020:

Between:

1.   Union of India
     Represented by Secretary
     Department of Post
     (Postal & Accounts wing)
     Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001

2.   Chief Postmaster General
     Karnataka Circle, Bangalore
     Bengaluru-560 001

3.   Postmaster General
     N.K. Region, Dharwad
     Dharwad-580 001

4.   Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
     Kalaburagi Division
     Kalaburagi-585101
                                          ...Petitioners

(By Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, ASGI)
                                 2



And:

Bhimaraya V. Kattimani S/o Venkanna Kattimani
Age: 57 years
Working as Postal Assistant
Kalaburagi R S MDG-585102
Residing at: Venkateshwar Krupa
Plot No.43, Ambika Nagar
Kalaburgi-585102
                                                  ...Respondent

(By Sri Shambuling S. Salimath, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and quash the order dated 11.02.2020 of the CAT, Bangalore in O.A.No.170/00757/ 2019 on its file (Anneuxre-A to the W.P.) and to direct the respondents to Benefits to be made available within two months next.

In W.P.No.226627/2020:

Between:

1. Union of India Represented by Secretary Department of Post (Postal & Accounts wing) Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001

2. Chief Postmaster General Karnataka Circle, Bangalore Bengaluru-560 001

3. Postmaster General N.K. Region, Dharwad Dharwad-580 001

4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Kalaburagi Division Kalaburagi-585101 ...Petitioners (By Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, ASGI)

And:

Shri T. Sanjeevayya S/o Thirupathi Age: 58 years Working as Postal Assistant Shorapur M.D.G.

Residing at: C/o Malagatti Mallanna House Court Road, Near Gadderaya Gudi Shahapur Dist. Yadgir-585223 ...Respondent (By Sri Shambuling S. Salimath, Advocate)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and quash the order dated 11.02.2020 of the CAT, Bangalore in O.A.No.170/00758/ 2019 on its file (Anneuxre-A to the W.P.) and to direct the respondents to Benefits to be made available within two months next.

These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' group this day, Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., made the following:

COMMON ORDER

These two writ petitions are disposed of by

common order as the facts are similar and question of

law involved is same. The writ petitions are filed

challenging the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by

Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Original

Application nos.170/00757/2019 & 170/00758/ 2019.

2. The respondent in W.P.No.226627/2020

namely T. Sanjeevayya was appointed as postman on

11.08.1991. On 13.04.1996, he was promoted to the

post of Postal Assistant. On 01.09.2008, he was

given second financial upgradation i.e., MACP-II. On

02.08.2017, he made a representation to the Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices, Kalaburagi Division

stating that he was entitled to get MACP-III with effect

from 13.04.2016. Vide letter dated 02.08.2017, the

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices informed him

that he had already earned two financial upgradations

and in order to claim MACP-III, he was required to

complete 30 years of service from the date of

appointment or 10 years from the last MACP and

therefore he was not entitled to claim MACP-III with

effect from 13.04.2016. Thereafter, he approached

the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing

Application No.170/00758/2019. The Tribunal by its

order dated 11.02.2020 allowed his application

holding that he was entitled to claim MACP-III.

3. The respondent in W.P.No.226631/2020

namely Bhimaraya V. Kattimani was appointed as

postman on 01.12.1991. He was promoted as Postal

Assistant on 20.04.1997 and MACP-II was granted to

him on 01.09.2008. He too made an application

claiming MACP-III with effect from 20.04.2017. His

application was rejected giving the same reason as

stated above and therefore he too approached the

Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original

Application No.170/00757/2019. His application was

also allowed on 11.02.2020.

4. We have heard Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur,

learned ASGI representing the appellants and Sri

Shambuling S. Salimath, learned counsel for the

respondents.

5. Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur submitted that

the respondents in both the cases would be entitled to

claim MACP-III only after completion of 30 years of

service. They availed the benefit of second MACP on

01.09.2008. Therefore the third MACP could be

granted only after expiry of 10 years. The

respondents claim MACP-III with effect from

13.04.2016 and 20.04.2017 i.e., from the respective

dates of their promotion as Postal Assistants. The

MACP scheme is so clear that third MACP can be

granted only 10 years after MACP-II was granted.

This position is made clear by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma and

others (Civil Appeal No.1579/2021 and

connected appeals dated 28.04.2021). Therefore,

the order passed by the Tribunal in both the cases

should be set aside.

6. Sri Shambuling Salimath submitted that

the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Bombay

High Court in the case of M.P.Joseph vs. Union of

India and others (W.P.No.1763/2013) and of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

and others vs. Balbir Singh Turn and another

(2018) 11 SCC 99. He would argue further that the

respondents became entitled to claim MACP-III soon

after completion of 20 years from the date of their

promotion as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the writ

petitions are devoid of merits.

7. We have considered the arguments and

perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has

arrived at a conclusion to hold that the respondents

were entitled to claim MACP-III following the

judgment of the Bombay High Court in M.P. Joseph

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir

Singh. But in the latest judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of R.K. Sharma (supra), the

position has been made clear. It is held as below:

"9. In view of the judgment of this Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Respondents and other similarly situated employees are entitled for financial upgradation under MACPS only to the next grade pay and not to the grade pay of next promotional post. It is clear from the resolution dated 30.08.2008 that the th recommendation of the 6 Pay Commission was accepted by the Government and was made effective from 01.01.2006 in respect of civilian employees with regard to revised scales of pay and dearness allowances. In so far as the revised allowances other than dearness allowance, recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission were given effect from 01.09.2008. The judgment in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) clinches the issue. Benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Schemes are incentives and are not part of pay. The resolution dated 29.08.2008 is made effective from 01.09.2008 for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA which includes financial upgradation under ACP & MACP Schemes. Therefore, the Respondents and other similarly situated officers are not entitled to seek implementation of the benefits of MACPS w.e.f. 01.01.2006 according to the resolution dated 29.08.2008. Moreover, the implementation of MACPS by granting financial upgradation only to the next grade pay in the pay band and not granting pay of the next promotional post w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would be detrimental to a large number of employees, particularly those who have retired. We find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that uniform implementation of MACPS for civilian employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would

result in large scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess."

8. The above principle is squarely applicable

to the facts in the instant cases. Here also the

position is that when the respondents were promoted

as Postal Assistants after they cleared Limited

Departmental Competitive Examination (LCDE), the

first MACP was set off as against that promotion. In

the cadre of Postal Assistants they became entitled to

MACP-II only on their completing 10 years of service

and it was also granted on the respective dates

mentioned above. Therefore, the MACP-III would fall

due after completion of another 10 years. In this

view, respondent in W.P.No.226631/2020 was entitled