IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDA
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 34 OF 2022 PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN OA:
K. GANESAN,AGED 68 YEARS,
RETIRED HIGHLY SKILLED ARTISAN,
GRADE – I(PAINTER),
MAIL MOTOR SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT
KOTTADIYIL HOUSE, T.C. 7/2361, EDAVAKODE, AISWARYA NAGAR, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM, PIN, 695017.
BY ADVS.SHRI.M.R.HARIRAJ (SR.) SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN
SHRI.VISWAJITH C.K
SMT.GISHA G. RAJ
SHRI.REJIVUE K.C.
SMT.VIDYA A.K
SMT.ALINA ANNA KOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI 110001.
2 THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERALKERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695033.
3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (STAFF)OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695033.
BY SHRI.S.BIJU, SCGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.6.2022, THE COURT ON 24.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
(Dated this the 24th day of June 2025)
Basant Balaji J.,
The Appellant is challenging the order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, on 17 March 2021, in Original Application (O.A.) No. 180/00854/2016 through this Original Petition.
2. The Petitioner commenced service as a Painter on 24 June 1982. He received a promotion to the post of Painter Gr.II (classified as Gr.II Skilled Artisan) effective from 1 December 1997, carrying a pay scale of ₹4000-100-6000. Subsequently, due to the re-categorisation of skilled artisan trades within the Mail Motor Service, the Petitioner was posted as a Highly Skilled Artisan in the same pay scale of ₹4000-100-6000, from 1 January 2003, as per Annex.A2.
3. The 5th Central Pay Commission introduced the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme by an order dated 9 August 1999. This scheme entitles employees to two financial upgradations upon completing 12 and 24 years of service, provided they have not received a regular promotion. The Petitioner's promotion to Painter, Skilled Artisan Gr.II (on 1 December 1997) was considered his 1st ACP. The Petitioner asserts entitlement to the 2ndfinancial upgradation upon completing 24 years of service on 24 June 2006, which was arbitrarily denied. Furthermore, with the advent of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the Petitioner, having completed 30 years of service on 24 June 2012, claims eligibility for the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP, which was also denied. These denials led the Petitioner to seek redress from the Tribunal.
4. The Respondents contested the Petitioner's claims, arguing that the promotion to Skilled Artisan Gr.II on 1 December 1997, should be treated as the 1st ACP benefit. The Petitioner's subsequent posting to the Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I on 1 December 1997, a promotion. Following the 6th CPC recommendations, the scale for Skilled Artisan Gr.I was upgraded to ₹4500-125-7000, placing it in Pay Band PB1 (₹5200-20200) with a grade pay of ₹2800/-. Thus, the Petitioner had already received financial benefits effective from 1 January 2006, thereby making him ineligible for the 2nd ACP. The 3rdMACP was denied due to the Petitioner's Annual Confidential Report (ACR) grading being "average," which did not meet the required "good" benchmark for MACP benefits.
5. The Question for Determination in this Original Petition (O.P.) is whether the Petitioner's posting as a Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I should be construed as a promotion or not.
6. Annex.A2, the order dated 29 March 2004, states that the Petitioner, then a Gr.II Painter, was "posted against the post of Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I" in the pay scale of ₹4000-100-6000, effective from 1 January 2003. Significantly, the same order explicitly uses the word "promoted" in reference to another individual, Sri P.K. Paulose, who was "promoted as Gr.II Skilled Artisan" in the identical pay scale, also effective from 1 January 2003. Furthermore, Annex.A2 specifies vigilance/disciplinary prerequisites for Sri Paulose's promotion, a condition, that is conspicuously absent for the Petitioner's posting.
7. Further, Annex.A2 also confirms that the pay scale for both Gr.II Skilled Artisan and Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I was identical at ₹4000-100-6000. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the Petitioner's movement from Skilled Artisan Gr.II to Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I was not a promotion, but rather a mere posting consequent to the re-categorisation of trades within the Mail Motor Service.
8. The Respondents' assert that the Petitioner received financial upgradation upon "promotion" to Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I due to the 6thCPC's enhancement of the ₹4000-100-6000 scale to ₹5200-20200 with a grade pay of ₹2800/-. At the time of his posting as a Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I, no fixation benefit was accorded to the Petitioner. The subsequent upgradation of the pay scale of the Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I (from ₹4000-100-6000 to ₹4500-125-7000 and placement in Pay Band PB1 ₹5200-20200 with a grade pay of ₹2800/-) was a general revision based on 6th CPC recommendations and cannot be treated as a financial upgradation or considered as the 2nd ACP specific to the Petitioner.
9. The Senior Counsel for the Petitioner rightly relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy and others1. This ruling clearly distinguishes between "promotion" and "upgradation," holding that upgradation merely confers a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay without movement from a lower to a higher position, whereas promotion involves an element of selection for movement to a post 1[(2011) 9 SCC 510].with a higher scale of pay.
10. Based on the foregoing analysis, it is unequivocally concluded that:
(i) The Petitioner's promotion to Skilled Artisan Gr.II, effective 1 December 1997, can be correctly termed as his 1st MACP and that the Petitioner's subsequent posting to Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I cannot be termed a promotion to deny the 2nd ACP. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to the 2nd ACP upon completion of 24 years of service, effective from 24 June 2006.
(ii) Regarding the 3rd MACP, the scheme mandates a "good" benchmark in ACR’s for its grant. As the Petitioner's ACRs for the periods 7 November 2007 to 31 March 2008 and 1 April 2008 to 28 September 2008, were marked "average," the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the 3rd MACP.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal erred in denying the 2nd ACP by incorrectly treating the Petitioner's posting as a Highly Skilled Artisan Gr.I as a promotion. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to the 2ndACP with effect from 24 June 2006, along with consequential modifications to his pension and pensionary benefits.
In the result, the Original Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR , CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 34/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ST/25-1/99 DATED 16.2.2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ST/25-1/99 DATED 29.3.2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.7.2013 OF THE APPLICANT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.1.2016 OF THE APPLICANT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DATED 7.11.2007 TO 31.3.2008
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DATED 01.4.2008 TO 28.9.2008
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DATED 29.9.2008 TO 31.3.2009
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DATED 1.4/2009 TO 31.3.2010
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DATED 1.4.2010 TO 31.3.2011
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DATED 1.4.2011 TO 31.12.2011
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF FILE NOTE SHEET NO. ST/101-6/M/RS/2010 DATED 25.8.2016
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. 35034/3/2008-ESTT(D)(VOL.II) DATED 04.10.2012
Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTORATE ORDER NO. 17-4/88-PE.I/PE.II (PT.I)(2) DATED 29.06.1992
Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTORATE LETTER NO. 22-2/2000 PEI (PCC) DATED 11-05-2005
Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT LETTER NO. 35034/1/97-ESTT.(D) DATED 09.08.1999
Annexure R4 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTORATE LETTER NO. 4-7/(MACPS)/2009-PCC DATED 01.09.2010
Annexure R5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. ST/101-6/M/125/2010 DATED 24.07.2012
Annexure R6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.03.2013
8Annexure R7 TRUE COPY OF THE PMG CENTRAL REGION LETTER NO. ST/13-9/2013 DATED 03.04.2013
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/3/2021 IN O.A. 854/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ERNAKULAM BENCH)
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 854/2016, FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
No comments:
Post a Comment