Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiSh Mahabir Singh vs M/O Communications on 6 January, 20201                     OA No.97/2015\n\n\n                 Central Administrative Tribunal\n                         Principal Bench\n\n                          OA No. 97/2015\n\n\n                                     Order reserved on : 17.12.2019\n                                   Order pronounced on: 06.01.2020\n\nHon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J)\nHon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)\n\n\nSh. Mahabir Singh, Retired as Ex Head Clerk,\nS/o Sh. Fateh Singh\nAged about 74 years,\nR/o H.No.108, Village Tiggipur,\nP.O. Bakhtawar Pur,\nDelhi-110036.\n                                                   ... Applicant\n\n(By Advocate: Sh. T.D.Yadav)\n\n                                      VERSUS\n\n1.   Union of India through\n     Director General,\n     Govt. of India,\n     Ministry of Communication,\n     Deptt. of Posts, New Delhi.\n\n2.   Chief Engineer (Civil),\n     Deptt. of Posts,\n     Dak Bhawan,\n     New Delhi.\n\n3.   Chief Post Master General,\n     Delhi Postal Circle,\n     New Delhi.\n\n4.   Executive Engineer,\n     Postal Civil Division,\n     Jhandewalan, New Delhi-1.\n                                               ... Respondents\n\n(By Advocate: Sh. R.K.Sharma)\n                             2                      OA No.97/2015\n\n\n                                 ORDERBy Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)\n\n\n      Applicant herein is a senior citizen.   He was appointed\n\nas a Peon in the scale of R.70-85 on 18.01.1965.         He was\n\npromoted as LDC in the pay scale of Rs.110-180 on\n\n06.10.1966 and as UDC in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 on\n\n25.07.1977.    Thereafter he was promoted as Head Clerk in\n\nthe   pay   scale   of   Rs.1400-2300    on    01.09.1997     and\n\nsuperannuated on 31.03.1998 on attaining 58 years of age.Options were called from non-Gazetted staff recruited\n\nupto 01.10.1986 for placement in Telecom wing. However, he\n\nhad given option for continuation in Department of Post (Civil\n\nWing) and this was allowed w.e.f. 01.04.1993 vide OM dated\n\n22.11.1994.2.    Department of Post vide letter dated 22.07.1993 decided\n\nto extend the TBOP/BCR Scheme to clerical staff of\n\nadministrative offices w.e.f. 26.06.1993.     TBOP involves one\n\nfinancial upgradation in the pay scale of next higher post in\n\ndepartmental hierarchy if someone is not promoted for 16\n\nyears and BCR involves second financial upgradation if\n\nsomeone is not promoted for 26 years.He requested for grant of Time Bound One Promotion\n\n(TBOP) and for grant of Biennial Cadre Review (BCR). This\n\nwas not agreed to.       He along with 11 others filed OA3                         OA No.97/2015No.886/HR/1998 at Chandigarh which was allowed vide\n\norder dated 06.02.2002.             The Chandigarh Bench of this\n\nTribunal passed following directions:"6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and if one\n       has regard to the reasons stated above, no logic is\n       available with the respondents not to extend the benefit\n       of TBOP and BCR Schemes to the applicants when it has\n       been made (Circle Offices) in the Deptt. of Posts.\n       Annexures A/1 and A/2 are liable to be quashed and set\n       aside and as such we direct accordingly.      Respondents\n       are directed to consider cases of the applicants for their\n       promotion to the next higher grade of Rs.1400-2300\n       (unrevised) under TBOP Scheme and Rs.1600-2660\n       (unrevised) under BCR, second promotion scheme on\n       completion of 16 years and 26 years service respectively\n       from the due dates from which other equally situated\n       employees of Deptt. of Posts in the cadre of the applicants\n       have been promoted with consequential benefits, if\n       otherwise they are found eligible, in terms of the\n       provisions    contained    in    the   related    Schemes.\n       Respondents are further directed to implement the above\n       direction within a period of three months from service of\n       these orders."3.    Respondents preferred a writ in Hon‟ble High Court and\n\ndecided to implement the Tribunal‟s order, subject to outcome\n\nof   Writ   vide   letter   dated    29.07.2003.           Accordingly,\n\nTBOP/BCR benefit, both were extended together w.e.f.\n\n26.06.1993 vide order dated 15.12.2003.              Applicant pleads\n\nthat the said Writ is yet to be decided.4.    Applicant represented on 27.08.2004 to grant BCR\n\nbenefit w.e.f. 01.07.1993 instead of 26.06.1993.              This was\n\nagreed vide order dated 08.11.2004 and the earlier order\n\ndated 12.08.2004 was modified.4                         OA No.97/2015Accordingly, basic pay was fixed at Rs.1700/- as of\n\n01.07.1993 in the scale of Rs.1600-50-2660.                  Applicant,\n\nhowever, pleads that it ought to have been fixed at Rs.1800/-\n\nas of 26.06.1993 as was given to one Sh. Lal Chand, Ex Head\n\nClerk vide order dated 16.05.2006. As per this order, Sh. Lal\n\nChand was given following fixation as of 26.06.1993:As LDC/UDC in pay scale of\n       Rs.1200-2040                                    Rs.1640/-Placement as Postal Assistant in pay scale\n       of Rs.975-1660                            Rs.1660/-TBOP benefit given in pay scale of\n       Rs.1400-2300                                    Rs.1720/-BCR benefit given in pay scale of\n       Rs.1600-2660                                    Rs.1800/-This fixation order also specified as under:"The above fixation is subject to the final decision of the\n       Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh. In the\n       ongoing appeal filed in CW/8767/CAT/2002 against the\n       impugned orders dated 06.02.2002 of the Hon‟ble CAT\n       Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh."5.     Applicant has been pleading for grant of benefits at par\n\nwith    Sh.    Lal    Chand,     vide   his   representation         dated\n\n14.02.2006,          22.08.2007,        28.08.2007,       27.08.2009,\n\n14.09.2011, 26.09.2011, 22.10.2011 & 22.01.2014.                      This\n\nhas not been agreed so far.          Hence the applicant filed this\n\nOA.5                         OA No.97/20156.      Applicant brings out that Department of Post has\n\nissued OM on 28.01.2011 in relation to 5thCPCand 6thCPCrecommendations.          The impact of this letter is summarized\n\nas under:Designation      Head Clerk     OS-II         OS-I           OS\n\n4thCPCw.e.f. 1400-2300      1400-2600    1600-2660     1640-2900\n01.01.19865thCPCw.e.f. These two scales are These two scales are\n01.01.1996     merged     and    post   is merged    and    post   is\n               designated as Assistant in designated as OS in scale\n               scale of Rs.1600-2660       of Rs.1640-2900\n               New scale as per 5thCPCNew scale as per 5thCPCwas Rs.5000-8000            was Rs.5500-9000\n6CPCw.e.f. These two scales are merged and revised pay scale given\n th\n\n01.01.2006     PB-2 + GP Rs.4200/- or (Rs.9300-34800 + GP\n               Rs.4200)7.      Respondents opposed the OA on the following grounds:(i)     He has not exhausted departmental remedies and as\n\nsuch OA is violative ofSection 20of CAT (Procedure) Rules.(ii)    OA is not maintainable as it is self contradictory.(iii)   OA is barred by limitation as applicant is seeking benefit\n\nfrom 2006 whereas he filed the OA in 2015. Following was\n\nspecifically averred in counter reply:"3.   ...... As per the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case\n        ofD.C.S.Negi vs. U.O.I.& ors., [SLP (Civil)\n        No.7956/2011 decided on 07.03.2011] has given a\n        categorical direction tht the Central Administrative\n        Tribunal is duty bound to consider the limitation issue as\n        per the provisions ofAdministrative Tribunals Act, even if\n        this issue is not raised by the respondent authorities.\n        The explanation offered by the applicant is that he belongs\n        to Rajasthan State and came to know about benefits given\n        to persons similarly situated in the judgment dated\n        16.11.2010 in OA-3765/2009 later in point of time. Only6                         OA No.97/2015thereafter he could approach a legal practitioner for legal\n     help and on his advice he had sent a legal notice on\n     22.09.2011 which is not yet responded to. It is seen that\n     there is no valid ground to condone the delay.In the case\n     of BSNL vs. Ghanshyam Dass & Ors., AISLJ IV-2011(1)\n     472 it was held by the Apex Court that fence sitters cannot\n     be given any benefit."8.   It was further pleaded that in compliance to order dated\n\n06.02.2002      passed in OA No.886/1998 by Chandigarh\n\nBench of this Tribunal, TBOP/BCR benefit was granted w.e.f.\n\n26.06.1993 vide order dated 12.08.2004.            This pay fixation\n\nwas revised vide order dated 08.11.2004 at the request of\n\napplicant to grant him TBOP/BCR benefit w.e.f. 01.07.1993.\n\nLater on, this was partially revised vide order dated\n\n12.10.2009. Pay fixation granted is correct.As per this fixation, applicant was drawing Rs.1600/- in\n\nthe scale of Rs.1200-2040 as of 26.06.1993.              On grant of\n\nTBOP benefit to the scale of Rs.1400-2300, he was fixed at\n\nRs.1680 as of 26.06.1993 and on grant of BCR benefit to the\n\nscale of Rs.1600-2660, he was fixed at Rs.1750 w.e.f.\n\n26.06.1993.       Subsequent pay fixations were accordingly\n\ndone. These are correct and nothing further is due.9.   Matter has been heard.       Sh. T.D.Yadav, learned counsel\n\nrepresented the applicant and Sh. R.K.Sharma, learned\n\ncounsel represented the respondents.10. (a)    Applicant‟s grievance is in reference to pay fixation\n\ndone on grant of TBOP/BCR benefit where he claims that he7                     OA No.97/2015needs to be at par with one Sh. Lal Chand, who also retired\n\nas Head Clerk. (Applicant mentioned that Sh. Lal Chand had\n\ntaken voluntary retirement in 2002).(b)   Before grant of TBOP/BCR benefit, Sh. Lal Chand with\n\nwhom applicant is comparing himself, was fixed at Rs.1640 in\n\nthe scale of Rs.1200-2040 as of 26.06.1993.          It is only\n\nnatural that when Sh. Lal Chand was given TBOP/BCR\n\nbenefits his fixation will be with respect to this basic pay of\n\nRs.1640.(c)   As against this, applicant was drawing Rs.1600/- in the\n\npay scale of Rs.1200-2040 as of 26.06.1993, before grant of\n\nTBOP/BCR.         Naturally his subsequent fixation under\n\nTBOP/BCR will be with respect to this basic pay and they\n\nmay not be same as that of Sh. Lal Chand.(d)   Despite repeated queries as to how his case is similar to\n\nthat of Sh. Lal Chand, applicant who was present in person or\n\nhis counsel, both could not bring out anything except\n\ncontinuously pleading that applicant needs to be at par with\n\nSh. Lal Chand.(e)   In absence of anything produced in support of his claim,\n\nit has to be concluded that claim of applicant is without\n\nmerit.8                    OA No.97/201511. Accordingly, OA is dismissed being devoid of merit.    No\n\ncosts.( Pradeep Kumar)              ( Justice Vijay Lakshmi)\n  Member (A)                          Member (J)\n\n„sd‟