SK ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in all these applications are one and the same, the following common order is being passed.

(2.) A Scheme called One Time Bound Promotion (in short TBOP) was introduced by the Department in 1983, by which officers belonging to basic grades in Group 'C and 'D' and had completed 16 years of service in that grade, would be placed in the next higher grade. Subsequently, in the year 1991, the department introduced another Scheme known as Biennial Cadre Review Scheme (in short BCR scheme), by which the officers, who had completed 26 years of service, will be eligible for promotion equivalent to Higher Selection Grade (HSG in short). Para 2 of the Scheme of 1983 inter alia says that promotion to next higher scale of pay will be granted from the date following the date on which the identified officials complete 16 years regular service. In case of officials, who have completed 16 years of service before 30.11.1983, the promotion to the next higher scale of pay will take effect from 30.11.1983. The applicants in O.A. No. 976/2003 got the benefit of TBOP/BCR during the period between 1989 and 1999. The applicants in O.A. No. 977/2003 got the benefit of TBOP/ BCR during the period between 1983 and 2002. The applicant in O.A. No. 978/2003 got TBOP w.e.f. 30.1.1985 and BCR w.e.f. 1.7.1995, and the applicant in O.A. No. 979/ 2003 got the benefit of TBOP on 9.3.1995 and BCR w.e.f. 1.7.1993.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have contested the application by filing a counter-reply. It is the case of the respondents that all the applicants had been given financial upgradation to the TBOP/BCR only on putting 16/26 years of service and were not regularly promoted to LSG/HSG.II posts in the division, it is the case of the respondents that LSG/HSG posts are norm based posts and that in the entire circle there are 548 LSG and 75 HSG.II posts and the senior most BCR/TBOP official will be fitted against sanction posts in a division. It is the contention of the respondents that the applicants have not put in 5 years of regular service in LSG/HSG.II as they enjoyed only financial upgradation in pay scale as per the scheme of TBOP/BCR. In this context, the learned Counsel for the respondents had placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 845 of 2003, decided on 13.7.2004, where also the department cancelled permission already granted to the applicants therein to appear in departmental examination on the ground that the applicants therein were granted financial upgradation under TBOP/BCR Scheme, but were not promoted to LSG/HSG.II grades. In the above case, the respondents have drawn attention of the Tribunal to the letter dated 12.11.2002, wherein the department had clarified that TBOP/BCR placements are only financial upgradation and they have no co-ordination with regular promotion in LSG/HSG.II and the Tribunal on the basis of the said letter dismissed the application holding that the applicants therein do not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed for appearing in the PS Grade B examination and that the candidature of the said applicants therein has been rightly cancelled. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that since the specific issue for consideration in these o. As. is-whether the officials, like the applicants herein, who undisputedly got the benefit of TBOP/BCR scheme, can be said to have got the scale by way of promotion and they correspond to LSG/HSG.II or it is only financial upgradation and not promotion and consequently whether they fulfill the eligibility criteria, had been decided by the CAT Madras Bench (supra), the applicants, who enjoyed only financial upgradation, not having 5 years service in LSG on notional or regular basis and therefore, are not eligible to appear for the departmental competitive examination for PS Grade B examination. Therefore, there is no infirmity in rejecting their candidature. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the applicants had drawn our attention to the judgment of CAT Madras Bench dated 19.3.2004 passed in O.A. No. 679 of 2003, a copy of which is annexed along with rejoinder filed by the applicants in O.A. No. 976 of 2003. We find, in para 7 of the said judgment, the Tribunal has observed as under: