Summary of WP.No.1373 of 2021
•
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
•
Date: 04.11.2024
•
Petitioners: Union of India, Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu
•
Respondents: Central Administrative Tribunal, G. Rajarathinam
•
Issue: Challenge against the Tribunal's order dated 30.08.2019 regarding monetary benefits for the second respondent.
•
Outcome: The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the claim was belated and lacked merit, affirming that benefits are granted from the date of regular appointment only.
The High Court ruled that monetary benefits under TBOP and MACP-II cannot be granted with retrospective effect and are to be calculated from the date of regular appointment.
The second respondent's claim for additional benefits was deemed belated and without merit, leading to the dismissal of the claim. Thus, the court upheld the principle that such benefits are only applicable from the date of regularization of service.
In the counter affidavit to the Delhi case, the Department is citing this recent judgment to deny the dues to the Ex RTPs
The High court of Madras has made serious error in setting aside the order in O.A.No.32 assailed in WP 1373. First of all the judgement of Madras High court in 1373 is Contemptuous to the extent it set aside an order passed by the Tribunal relying on another judgement of the Tribunal which attained finality by an order of the Hon'ble Supreme court, I think. The judgement in O.A.No.79 of 2011 was challenged in WP 89 of 2014 and was dismissed in 2017 upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The SLP No 25442 of 2017 filed against that judgement in WP was also dismissed by the Supreme court. Thereafter that judgement was ordered to be implemented by the department in Kerala Circle and attained finality. In all these cases the Union of India was represented by responsible officers of the DoP. After all these challenging that order again itself is Contemptuous. Further, admitting a WP and setting aside the very same Order by a High Court is more Contemptuous.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, this very same High court in the very same subject had pronounced a judgement upholding the decision of Telengana High Court in W.P.No. 17400 & 17425 ratifying the judgement in O.A.No. 779 & 780 directing the department to grant regular posting to applicant PAs/SAs who were in RTP in the next half year and count all RTP service for all service benefits in terms of the Judgement in T.A.No.82/ 86 of Jabalpur CAT upheld by the Supreme court in 1988. While so, the same High court cannot, by ignoring its earlier judgement, pronounce another one in contradictory to its earlier judgement. If the bench has a different opinion it should normally transfer the case to a larger bench for taking a decision. Further, there are clear dictums that when there are contradictory judgements of equal benches, the earlier one will stand.
Again to say that even the judgement in O.A.No.79/2011 , OP (CAT) 89 /2014 are pronounced in wrong premises for the reason that it is decided as if there was ban against appointment of persons from RTP despite the orders of P&T Directorate dated 20.01.1984 & D.o.E letter dated 20.06.1984. As per these orders there is no ban against creation of new posts or filling up of vacancies if the recruitment is over or appointments from the select list.
There is also an order of Supreme Court pronounced during 1991 declaring that the period spent on temporary duty prior to regularisation should be counted for promotions.
Long before the judgement in the case of KN Sivadas and all others the Supreme court had held the decision of Jabalpur CAT order in T.A.No.82/86 as right by which all persons in RTP should have given posting against the vacancies in the next half year of their selection, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts to get other claims settled. Had it been done then the question of regularisation of RTP service would not have arisen.
While claiming benefits of earlier judgements by similarly placed persons there is no question of limitation either in admitting the case or restriction in arrears, says several judgements.
Either facts have not been disclosed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras OR the department has concealed these facts including implementation of Jabalpur CAT order confirmed by the SC in 1988. Evidently there is no discussion on Jabalpur CAT order before the Hon'ble High Court Madras in disposing of the WP decided in Nov-2024.
By all these the order of Hon'ble High Court Madras is Contemptuous and erroneous. It will not stand and not be useful in SLP.
Provided the concerned parties should make use of all these orders.
At least in the Delhi case we should bring all these before the Tribunal.
Post a Comment