Full Judgment
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant Shri Gandhi has filed this OA seeking the following relief:
“1) To direct the respondents to pay duty pay to the applicant for the period from 30.11.2008 to 28.12.2008 for the service rendered as Group-B Senior Postmaster, Tallakulam HO consequent to
2) direct the Respondents to revise the pensionary benefits of the applicant by taking into account of the duty pay applicable to the post of Senior Postmaster (Group-B) and pay the arrears to the applicant.
3) Direct the Respondent to pay the 6th pay Commission arrears for the service rendered as Deputy Postmaster HSG-I at Tallakulam Head Post Officer for the period from 18.5.2007 to 29.11.2008 and 29.12.2008 to 31.12.2008 by taking into option given under CCS (RP) Rules 2008 by the applicant on 23.9.2008 and
4) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Shri R. Malaichamy has appeared for the applicant and Shri S. Panneerselvam has appeared for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by the applicant that while he was working as Assistant Manager (HSG-II), PSD, Madurai he was appointed as Deputy Postmaster (HSG-I), Tallakulam Head Post Office vide third respondent order dated 17.5.2007 against a clear vacant post on adhoc basis. The applicant joined the post on 18.5.2007 and the applicant was paid the pay and allowances applicable to HSG-I and since the applicant worked for more than one year he has drawn one increment also. The promotion to the cadre of HSG-I was given effect to after 01.01.2006, he was eligible to offer option to fix his pay in revised scale. His option was given to the Senior Postmaster, Tallakulam on 23.9.2008. But it was not given effect to as he was in the HSG-I cadre on adhoc basis even for more than a year. It is further stated that the applicant’s pension should be revised by refixing his pay from time to time and his pension to be revised accordingly. It is also submitter that the applicant has submitted representation dated 24.01.2009 but there is no reply. The applicant is being paid with a pension for HSG-II cadre only even though he retired from service in the cadre of HSG-I besides working as Senior Postmaster (Group-B). In this connection the applicant made another representation dated 13.3.2008 to the 1st respondent but at all ended in vain. It is further submitted that for calculation of pension and for other service benefits the last pay drawn has to be taken into account. Though the applicant worked as Senior Postmaster from 30.11.2008 to 28.12.2008 and as Deputy Postmaster from 29.12.2008 to 31.12.2008, he being paid with a pension for HSG-II cadre only. Learned counsel for the applicant has also produced a copy of supreme Court judgment in the case of Selvaraj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair reported in CDJ 1998 SC 142 and also the order of Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Radhelal Goud Vs. Union of India in OA No. 793/2007 decided on 12.3.2008. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the OA should be allowed.
4. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed reply statement. In the reply statement, it is stated that the applicant was given promotion to HSG-I cadre on adhoc basis in relaxation of the existing Recruitment Rules for a period not exceeding one year or till the recruitment rules are notified and appointments are made according to the revised recruitment rules whichever is earlier vide order dated 17.5.2007 and the applicant joined the duty on 18.5.2007. In view of his adhoc promotion to HSG-I he was paid pay and allowances applicable to HSG-I cadre. The applicant’s adhoc promotion was further extended for a period of six months as per Directorate’s instructions contained in letter dated 04.01.2008 and the said adhoc promotion was continued till the date of retirement of the applicant. The representations of the applicant for revision of pension was processed and sent to the second respondent by the third respondent. While calculating the applicant’s pay for the purpose of arriving his pension, his last pay drawn in HSG-I at the time of his retirement was Rs. 20,370/- (including grade pay) and the proposal was sent to the General manager, Postal Accounts and Finance, Chennai, who in turn, vide his report dated 17.12.2008 has stated that the pension calculations have been made on the substantive cadre of Rs. 15760+4200 = Rs.19,960/-. Regarding promotion on adhoc basis, clarification from the Directorate has been sought and on receipt of the clarification, the case of the applicant will be taken up for revision of pension. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for respondents submits the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed by him.
5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also perused the documents available on record.
6. The point for our consideration is, whether the applicant entitled for the relief sought for by him in this OA.
7. Regarding the relief No.1 of the applicant in the relief column, the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Selvaraj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair, and Radhelal Vs. Union of India cited supra. These cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in those cases, the petitioners were given written order to work on higher post. In the present case, there is no such written order, but the applicant was only informed to work in a Group-B post for a period less than a month. Therefore, in the absence of any written order no relief can be granted for incharge arrangements for which salary is claimed and hence relief No.1 and 2 are not sustainable. So far as relief No.3 i.e. pay fixation in HSG-I is concerned, it is seen from letter dated 17.5.2007 that the applicant was promoted to the post of HSG-I on adhoc basis for a period of one year, in relaxation of the recruitment rules by the competent authority. It is also admitted by the respondents that the applicant was paid the pay and allowances attached to the post of HSG-I. It is further admitted by the respondents that they have calculated the pension of the applicant as per the last pay drawn by the applicant. But it is only the General Manager, Postal Accounts and Finance, Chennai who has sought for clarification from the Driectorate, which has not been received so far. When the Directorate itself has promoted the applicant in relaxation of the recruitment rules, there is no need to seek clarification from the Directorate. Moreover, though two years have lapsed, no clarification has been received from the Directorate. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has to be granted the relief No.3. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to calculate the pensionary benefits of the applicant based on the last pay of Rs. 20,370/- drawn by him in the Grade of HSG-I and pay him the difference of pensionary benefit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The OA is partly allowed. No costs.