Raichel Andrews, S. Krishna Veni & K. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Director (Staff), Office of the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum; Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum; Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi; Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi; P. Satheesh Kumar; V.R. Bhadrakumar; P. Komalam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 27926 of 2002(S) ----------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. RAICHEL ANDREWS, POSTAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. S.KRISHNA VENI, POSTAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K.VIJAYAKUMAR, POSTAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK SRI.THOMAS MATHEW (VANCHIYOOR) SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (STAFF), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 5. P.SATHEESH KUMAR, L.S.G. POSTAL ASSISTANT (TBOP), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. OP 27926/2002 6. V.R.BHADRAKUMAR, L.S.G. POSTAL ASSISTANT (TBOP), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 7. P.KOMALAM, L.S.G. POSTAL ASSISTANT (TBOP), OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP 27926/02 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ST/300/2/99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.2.00. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ST/300/2/99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 22.2.00. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ST/300/2/99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 22.2.00. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4-12/88-PE.I(Pt) DATED 22.7.1993 BY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXT.P5 - TRUE EXTRACT OF THE MEMO NO.EST/51-6/93 DATED 19.1.1994 ISSUED BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR (EST) OF THE IIND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE GRADATION LIST OF 1995 MODIFIED BY LETTER NO.ST/GL/CO/97(KW) DATED 7.5.99. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.22-5/95-PE-I DATED 8.2.96 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.22-5/95-PE-I DATED 26.3.96 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ST/300/2/94 DATED 224.4.96 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ST/300/2/96 DATED 14.3.97 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.22-5/95-PE-I DATED 3.8.97 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.22-5/95-PE -I DATED 1.1.98 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ST/300/2/99 DATED 13.4.99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 14.2.00 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO.1024 OF 2000. EXT.P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.22-6/2000-2000-PE-I DATED 17.5.00 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. EXT.P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.02 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO.1024/2000. /TRUE COPY/ ## K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------O.P. NO. 27926 OF 2002-S ----------------------------------------- ## Dated 1[st] January, 2008. ## JUDGMENT ## Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are Postal Assistants working in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle. The Government of India introduced Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP) and Biennial Cadre Review (second promotion) to the Government Servants, who were stagnating in the same post for several years. TBOP was introduced to grant higher grade to those who stagnated for more than 16 years in the same post and BCR was introduced for the benefit of those who stagnated for 26 years respectively in 1983 and 1991. The said promotion schemes were not extended to the ministerial staff working in the Circle Offices under the Department of Posts. Finally, by Ext.P4 order dated 22.7.1993, the above schemes were extended to them also. Ext.P6 is the seniority list in the cadre of L.D.C in the petitioners' unit. They are respectively serial numbers 97, 96 and 100 in that list. While implementing the scheme, the respondents 5 and 6 along with another were granted higher grade as per Ext.P13 order dated 13.4.1999. The 5[th] respondent was promoted with effect from Op 27926/2002 2 4.8.1998 and the 6[th] respondent was promoted with effect from 30.7.1998. Thereupon, the petitioners submitted Ext.P14 and similar representations claiming that they being seniors to respondents 5 and 6, they may also be promoted with effect from the date the aforesaid juniors were promoted. Their representations were rejected by Exts.P1 to P3 communications dated 22.2.2000. They were told that they have not fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the Department for placement in the higher grade. Challenging those communications and seeking consequential reliefs, the petitioners along with others filed O.A.No.1024/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The official respondents resisted the application by filing Ext.P15 reply statement. According to them, as per the extant norms the applicants are ineligible for placement in the higher grade. Further, they were only in the grade of L.D.C and therefore, the example cited by them being cases of protection granted to persons working in the post of U.D.C or equivalent post, cannot have any application to the case of the applicants. The C.A.T after hearing both sides, dismissed the O.A., by Ext.P17 order dated 4.6.2002. This Original Petition was filed challenging Ext.P17. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal mainly acted upon Ext.P16, which is a clarification dated 17.5.2000, issued long after the issuance of the impugned orders. So, they Op 27926/2002 3 say, Ext.P17 order is liable to be set aside. 2. The official respondents have filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned orders. They say, even if Ext.P16 is excluded from consideration, still the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. The petitioners claim reliefs mainly relying on Exts.P7 and P11. According to the said respondents, Exts.P7 and P11 are applicable only to those who are working in the cadre of U.D.C and not the petitioners, who are working in the cadre of L.D.C. So, they pray for the dismissal of the O.P. 3. As evident from the order of the C.A.T., the applicants claimed reliefs mainly relying on Exts.P7 and P11. But, the Tribunal held that unless the applicants satisfy the eligibility criteria,even if they are seniors, they cannot get promotion or placement. This principle was stated, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India** [(1999)2 SCC 119]. The Tribunal also relied on Annexure-A13, which is Ext.P16 in this Original Petition, to reject the claim of the applicants. But, we feel that Annexure-A13 cannot have any application to decide on the validity of the promotions made in 1998 or the validity of the orders rejecting their representations on 22.2.2000. The principle laid down by the C.A.T is that seniority alone will not be sufficient to get promotion, Op 27926/2002 4 but the incumbents should satisfy the eligibility criteria. But, the Tribunal has failed to examine with reference to the extant norms contained in Exts.P7 and P11 whether the applicants are entitled to get promotion, having regard to the fact that their juniors in the very same cadre have been granted upgradation on the ground that they have longer service. We notice that the applicants claimed reliefs, relying on Exts.P7 and P11. The Tribunal has a duty to tell them why those orders are not applicable to their case. Therefore, we feel that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination of the case canvassed by the applicants in accordance with law. Accordingly, Ext.P17 order is quashed. O.A.No.1024/2000 is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh disposal. The claim of the applicants that they are entitled to get higher grade because their juniors in the same cadre were granted upgradation, shall be reconsidered by the Tribunal with reference to the relevant orders, including Exts.P7 and P11, which were in force at the Op 27926/2002 5 relevant time and also the pleadings and submissions of the parties. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. **K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE** . **P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** Nm/ Op 27926/2002 6 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------O.P. NO.27926/2002-S ---------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 01.01.2008.