Patna High Court
The Union Of India vs Kapildeo Singh on 21 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2172 of 2021
======================================================
1. The Union of India through Director General, Department of Post, New
Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, G.P.O. Complex, Patna -
800001.
3. The Director of Accounts (Postal), G.P.O. Complex, Patna - 800001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nawada Postal Division, Nawada -
805110.
5. The Inspector of Post (West), Nawada Postal Division, Nawada - 805110.
... ... Petitioners.
Versus
Kapildeo Singh Son of Late Sahdeo Singh, Resident of Village - Sirsa, P.O.
Baijnathpur, P.S. - Sitamarhi, District - Nawada. ... ... Respondent.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN)
Date : 21-08-2021
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel
appearing for the Union of India through video conference.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an undertaking
that all the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be
removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of
this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made,
without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical
functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month
thereof.
2. The present writ petition is directed against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2172 of 2021 dt.21-08-2021
order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter in short as 'CAT') in
O.A. No.250 of 2017, whereby the original application has
been allowed. The relevant portion of the impugned order is
reproduced herein below:-
"11.The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of
P.N. Premchandravan vs. State of Kerala (supra),
held that "the delay in convening the DPC is
administrative lapse, promotee cannot be held to
suffer for no fault on their part". The Hon'ble High
Court, Patna in the case of i.e. CWJC No.3893 of
2009 (supra) observed as under:-
"in the present case the petitioners case for
absorption /promotion to group 'D' posts should
have been considered on or before 10th of July 1994
whereas it was actually considered later and the
promotion order dated 21.02.1995 was issued after a
delay of approximately 08 months from the due date.
The benefit of such delay in the background of facts
and the departmental policy decisions must go to the
petitioner. By grant of such benefits, the petitioner
would be entitled for pension which is the very
purpose of the policy decision that group 'D' post
should be given to those who are below 50 years of
age.
In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion
and particularly, in view of the judgments rendered
by the Tribunal against the postal authority
themselves, as contained in annexure-10 and 11, the
writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed
to treat the petitioner as having completed minimum
qualifying service period of 10 years and allow him
pension on that basis as early as possible preferably
within a period of two months from today."
12. In the instant OA, the case of applicant
herein is squarely covered by the aforesaid law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) as well as
judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Patna
as referred hereinabove (supra). It is noticed that the
applicant was promoted only in the month of July
Patna High Court CWJC No.2172 of 2021 dt.21-08-2021
2001 for the vacancy of year 1999. Had the
respondents maintained the time schedule for
convening the DPC for consideration of the eligible
candidates for the promotion of Group 'D' with
regard to vacancy year 1999 as per the
Circular/Guideline of the respondents, the applicant
could have been promoted in year 1999 itself and
could have also rendered more than 10 years of
service. However, the respondents failed to convene
the DPC for the vacancy of year 1999 as per the
schedule fixed by the respondents themselves, no
reason whatsoever has been stated by the
respondents for non-convening the DPC in time. The
respondents had convened the DPC only on
29.06.2001 for vacancy of 1999 after a considerable
delay. There is a tremendous lapse on the part of
respondents in this regard. The said DPC had
recommended the name of the applicant for
promotion in Group 'D' subsequent to it, the
promotion order was issued only on 05.07.2001. The
said action of respondents caused immense life long
hardship to the applicant and he is being now
deprived of pension.
3. During course of argument, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 8497 of 2019 (Union of India vs
Gandiba Behera) along with other analogous cases.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and perusing the materials available on record, we are of the
opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the above judgment is not applicable. That was a case where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the issue whether
services rendered by the employees in the postal department in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2172 of 2021 dt.21-08-2021
the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) ought to be
computed or not for the purpose of calculation of the qualifying
service of their pension after they got selected in regular posts in
the said department.
5. We agree with the reasoning assigned by the
learned CAT for allowing the original application and not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
6. We are conscious that notices had been directed to
be issued to the sole respondent by order dated 08.07.2021 but
his appearance need not be awaited, considering the view taken
as above. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
7. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are
removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made
by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para 1
hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the
notice of this Court.
(Vikash Jain, J)
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
Trivedi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.08.2021
Transmission Date NA
