High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-03-23Original petition dismissed in limine.

M.P. Pauloose v. Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:OP (CAT) No. 948 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrshan, J.
C. T. Ravikumar, J.
Judgment Date: 2012-03-23
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court dismissed the original petition in limine, upholding Ext.P3 and sustaining the CAT’s conclusions; no interference was warranted under Articles 226/227.
Final Disposition: Original petition dismissed in limine.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Director of Postal Services (HQ), Office of the Chief Postmaster General Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director Accounts (Postal), Pension Section, Thiruvananthapuram
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aluva Division, Aluva
The Union of India represented by Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi

Respondents

M. P. Paulose, aged 63 years, S/o Paulu, Retired Post Master (HSG II), Kalady M.D.G P.O, Kalady 683 574

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Krishnamoorthy, CGC

Counsels for Respondents

• S. P. Sebastian

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala original petition (OP (CAT) No. 948 of 2012) challenges Ext.P3 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam, in OA No. 52/2010. The core issue concerns whether the respondent, a retired Post Master, could be placed in HSG-I on an ad hoc basis (pay band 2 with Rs. 4600 grade pay from 25 Feb 2007) or should remain in HSG-II. The respondent alleges that the notional HSG-I placement deprived him of monetary benefits; the department argues it is not a promotion and that reliance on KV Jankiraman’s case is misplaced. The CAT held that Jankiraman’s decision has no application here, noting that the date on which the immediate junior was elevated to HSG-I is crucial. It found no substantial difference in duties and responsibilities between HSG-I and HSG-II, treating them as two grades, and concluded the respondent was capable of higher responsibilities; it also analyzed monetary-benefit implications, citing Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Abduta Rao in support of potential monetary benefits in the context of such placement. The High Court ultimately held there was no ground to interfere with Ext.P3 under Articles 226/227, and dismissed the petition in limine. The petitioner establishment argues there is no injustice, and the respondent’s claims are not sustainable.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India: Articles 226 & 227Right to Information Act: Section 6

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the notional placement of the respondent in HSG-I on ad hoc basis (pay band 2 with Rs. 4600 grade pay from 25.02.2007) effectively amounts to a promotion with monetary benefits, and that the comparison with an immediate junior showed no substantial difference in duties or responsibilities between HSG-I and HSG-II. They rely on the reasoning in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Abduta Rao to defend monetary-beneﬁt considerations and argue that the CAT’s Ext.P3 should not deprive the respondent of potential benefits; they challenge the Tribunal’s application of KV Jankiraman’s case as inapplicable due to the relevant dates and emphasize that the respondent shoulder higher responsibilities. The petition urges interference under Articles 226/227 to set aside Ext.P3.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues that the notional HSG-I placement deprived him of monetary benefits and seeks relief from the CAT order; reliance is placed on KV Jankiraman’s case to argue that the exercise of notional placement should be treated as a promotion resulting in monetary entitlements. The petition contends that the Tribunal misapplied law and that monetary-benefit issues require corrective consideration.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.V. Jankiraman v. Union of India	(1991) 4 SCC 109	Distinguished	The court noted that Jankiraman’s decision has no application here due to the date on which the immediate junior was elevated to HSG-I (25.02.2007).
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Abduta Rao	(2005) 12 SCC 258	Positive	Cited to support consideration of monetary benefits in the promotion context; relied on to assess the monetary implications in paragraph 15 of Ext.P3.
Appellate Civil 5128/2011	APPAL (CIVIL) 5128/2011	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P4 references this judgment; cited as background material but not directly applied to the decision.
W.A. No. 1163/2007	W.A No. 1163/2007	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P5 cites this appeal; referenced in context but not controlling.
O.A. 149/2003	O.A. No. 149/2003	Mentioned Only	Exhibit A5 cites this order; referenced without affecting the judgment.
O.A. 97/2007	O.A. No. 97/2007	Mentioned Only	Exhibit A7 refers to this order; used as background rather than as binding authority.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.P. Pauloose v. Union of India and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2012/3RD CHAITHRA 1934** **OP (CAT).No. 948 of 2012 (Z) ---------------------------AGAINST ORDER IN OA.52/2010 DATED 28.09.2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:** **------------------------------** **1. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES (H Q), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DIRECTOR ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), PENSION SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALUVA DIVISION, ALUVA.** **4. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:** **---------------------** **M.P.PAULOSE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.PAULO, RETIRED POST MASTER (HSG II), KALADY M.D.G P.O, RESIDING AT MULLASEDATH HOUSE, MAROTTICHODE, KALADY 683 574.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DG** **OP (CAT).No. 948 of 2012 (Z)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT-P1- COPY OF THE O.A 52/2010 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE MEMO.ST/3-3/2005 DATED 21.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.ST/3-4/2005 DATED 26.04.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.ST/3-3/2006 DATED 12.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.R1A/6-106/07 DATED 25.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.149/2003. ANNEXURE A6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CAT/04/2003 DATED 23.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.06.2008 IN O.A.NO.97/2007. ANNEXURE A8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE R.I.ACT. ANNEXURE A9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RTI/6-365/08 DATED 30.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A10: COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION MEMO OF APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE POSTMASTER, ALUVA. EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA 52/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A 52/2010 DATED 28/09/2010 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/10/2007 IN APPAL (CIVIL) 5128/2011 EXHIBIT-P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/07/2011 IN W.A NO. 1163/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **DG** ## **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.** ## **-------------------------------------------O.P.(CAT). No.948 OF 2012** ## **--------------------------------------------** Dated this the 23[rd ] day of March, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.** 1. The postal administration has filed this original petition challenging Ext.P3 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on O.A.No.52 of 2010 filed by the respondent. 2. As discernible from paragraph 1 of Ext.P3, there were previous litigations relating to certain disciplinary proceedings and ultimately, when the respondent succeeded in all that, the question was whether he was entitled to be placed in HSG-I grade or whether he ought to continue in HSG-II grade. The Department notionally placed him in HSG-I on ad hoc basis in pay band 2 (Rs.9300- **O.P.(CAT) 948/12** 2 34800) with grade pay of Rs.4600/- with effect from 25.2.2007. The respondent challenged that action before the Tribunal to the extent it was a notional placement because such notional placement deprives him of all the monetary benefits. The only plea raised by the Department before the Tribunal was that the case of the applicant (respondent herein) was covered by K.V.Jankiraman's case **[(1991) 4 SCC 109].** The Tribunal rightly noted that the said decision could have no application since 25.2.2007 was the date on which the immediate junior of the respondent was given HSG-I. We pointedly look into the pleadings before the Tribunal and the submissions advanced before that authority to find out whether there was any stand for the establishment that there was difference in the duties and responsibilities between officers working in HSG-I and HSG-II. They are essentially two grades. Therefore, even if the placement in HSG-I is treated as a promotion, there is really no difference in the duties and responsibilities, going by the materials on record. We may here note that the Tribunal, in paragraph 15 of **O.P.(CAT) 948/12** 3 the impugned Ext.P3 order, has rightly found that the applicant (respondent herein) was available to shoulder higher responsibilities and there was no delay in his approaching the Tribunal challenging the issue of the charge sheet. The support that the Tribunal had from the decision of the apex Court in **Government of A.P v. M.Abduta Rao [(2005) 12 SCC 258]** has relevance to the extent that it is applied in favour of the applicant in paragraph 15 of Ext.P3. The distinction whether the said case related to a regular promotion is not of any consequence; since in paragraph 14 of Ext.P3 all that was taken from M.Abduta Rao's case (supra) is as regards grant of monetary benefits. We also look at the case from the angle of the total monetary benefits that would accrue to the respondent if Ext.P3 were to stand. We do not find that there is any ground to hold that Ext.P3 results injustice to the establishment. Respondent retired from service on 30.6.2008. With this, we do not find any ground to exercise authority under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in **O.P.(CAT) 948/12** 4 ## favour of the establishment. 3. In the result, original petition fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed _in_ _limine._ **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge)** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)** **spc/23.3.** **O.P.(CAT) 948/12** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **O.P.(CAT) 948/12** 6