Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) - (1.) THE applicant is seeking first financial upgradation w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and second financial upgradation w.e.f. 1.10.2009. His contention is that he was working in the IDA scale of E -3 when MTNL issued policy of first financial upgradation w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and second financial upgradation w.e.f. 1.10.2009 on 11.9.2007. Vide order dated 22.9.2011, the respondents have granted him first financial upgradation to E -4 scale w.e.f. 2.1.2011. On 29.9.2011, the applicant gave a representation to the respondents to change the date of his first financial upgradation to 1.10.2004 instead of 2.1.2011 as per the declared policy. The respondents have, however, rejected his claim on 5.4.2013. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed this OA before us.
(2.) IN their reply, the respondents have stated that a chargesheet for major penalty was issued to the applicant on 15.6.2007 for acts of gross misconduct and misbehaviour committed by him during the period 2005 -06. An inquiry was held and the said charges against the applicant stood proved. He was, therefore, meted out a punishment of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect with further directions that during the period of such reduction, the applicant will not earn any increment of pay and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. This punishment was imposed upon the applicant by the disciplinary authority on 30.12.2009. This has attained finality as the applicant has not challenged the same in any forum. The applicant retired from service on superannuation on 31.8.2013. Further the respondents have stated that they have already given him first financial upgradation w.e.f. 2.1.2011 after expiry of the effect of penalty imposed upon him. They have also mentioned that since the applicant had been finally punished in the disciplinary proceedings the question of acting on sealed cover in his case did not arise. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. The respondents have not denied that first financial upgradation as per policy of MTNL was due to the applicant from 1.10.2004. Their contention is that the same could not be granted to him because of the pendency of departmental proceedings. However, we noticed that the chargesheet was served on the applicant on 15.6.2007. Thus, it is clear that on the relevant date i.e. 1.10.2004, the applicant was not facing any disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there is no reason for not granting him first financial upgradation w.e.f. 1.10.2004. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal passed in OA No. 4237/2012 (Satyendra Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others) dated 24.5.2013. While passing this judgment, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar, : (2013) 4 SCC 161.
(3.) THEREAFTER the second financial upgradation would have been due to the applicant after four years of service i.e. w.e.f. 1.10.2008 but as per policy w.e.f. 1.10.2009. Admittedly, on that date, disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant which culminated into in an order of punishment passed on 30.12.2009. Therefore, the second financial upgradation could not have been granted w.e.f. 1.10.2009. However, the applicant s penalty was that of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The applicant was certainly entitled to be considered for grant of second financial upgradation after the effect of this penalty had expired much before his retirement on 31.8.2013. The respondents have themselves granted him first financial upgradation w.e.f. 2.1.2011. In our opinion this should have been second one, the first one being from 1.10.2014.;