Update on CAT case on 17140/-

As per our Advocate the Dept. again made submission for 4 weeks time to file reply stt.  But court granted 3 weeks time only. Their adv stated that the reply stt will be filed before 3 weeks.

Date of next hearing is on 7.9.2018.

Update on hearing on Rs17140/- in CAT, Principal Branch.

Discussed with Advocate Shri Padma Kumar at CAT, Pr. Bench, Delhi along with one applicant of the case, Sh. Arvind Kumar  regarding our case OA No.1209/2018 filed for minimum entry pay for Inspector Posts w.e.f 01.01.2006.

The case is listed for 26.07.2018 at Registrar office, as no reply has been received at CAT from respondent.

We requested for necessary action for early disposal of the case.The case is with Registrar and had not been shifted to court, for want of response from Respondent.

It is mentioned that the OA file was forwarded by DOP to MOF, being 2nd respondent, for inputs and the same is still awaited. 

IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT -- WITH EFFECT FROM 10.02.1995 RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS SHOULD BE ROSTER POINT BASED (TOTAL NUMBER OF POSTS SHOULD BE THE BASIS FOR WORKING OUT NUMBER OF POST TO BE EARMARKED FOR EACH CATEGORY IN THE CASTE - WISE RESERVATION ROSTER) AND NOT VACANCY BASED.

To view the copy of judgement, please CLICK HERE. 

Supreme Court orders to reinstates candidates who got terminated due to cancellation of PA/SA 2014 Recruitment Exam

WP filed by DOP challenging an order of CAT directing them to recalculate the vacancies in the cadre of PS Gr. B is dismissed by High Court of Judicature Hydrabad is dismissed

Madras CAT case adjourned to 23/12/2016

CAT Madras Bench  case No. MA/310/00911/2016 (LTJ) adjourned to 23/12/2016.

One more CAT case filed for stay in holding PS Gr. B examination

All India Association of Postmaster Cadre filed OA No. 291/00818/2016 before Hon'ble CAT Jaipur Bench for stay in holding of PS Gr. B examination scheduled to be held on 4-12-2016 and 100% posts of Sr. PM for Postmaster Cadre. 

It is requested to all members of IP/ASP Association to study the second demand made by All India Association of Postmaster Cadre and submit their views/comments thereon through their Circle Secretary to CHQ. 

Kerala gets stay order on transfer of PM (IP LIne ) post to General Line.

CAT Case : Sr. PM Examination

It is learnt that following two CAT cases are still pending in Odisha circle.

Sl. No.	Name of applicant	OA No.	Circle
1	Priyanath Pattanayak	872/2011	Odisha
2	Devi Prasad Nayak	873/2011	Odisha

Circle Secretary Odisha circle will intimate the present status of the cases.

Good News : Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w grant of GP Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/- decided in favour of applicants

DEPARTMENT CAN NOT MAKE RECOVERY AFTER RETIREMENT - JABALPUR CAT ORDER

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH

JABALPUR

Original Application No. 694 of 2013

Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 19^th day of May, 2015

SHRI G. P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

K. L. Phoolmali, S/o late Umarao Phoolmali,

DOB 07.1.1952, R/o JM-70, KIshore Nagar,

Meera Kishan Kunj, District Khandwa– 450001 (MP) .------- Applicant

(By Advocate - Shri Vijay Tripathi)

V e r s u s 

1. Union of India through its Secretary

Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts,

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi –110001.

2. Chief Postmaster Master General, Madhya Pradesh Circle,

Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal – 462012 (MP)

3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Khandwa Division, Khandwa (MP) 450001 ------ - Respondents

(By Advocate – Shri Amjad Ahmed, Proxy counsel of Shri A. T. Faridee)

(Date of reserving order : 14.05.2015)

 

O R D E R

 

The applicant has preferred this Original Application for the following reliefs:

 

“8(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal;

 

8(ii) Upon holding that reducing the basic pay of the applicant as Rs.19960/- is bad in law, command the respondents to calculate all retiral dues and pension of the applicant on the basis of the last basic of Rs. 20,410/-

 

8(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the pension, DCRG, leave encashment, commuted value of pension and pay arrears of the aforesaid amount with 18% interest p.a.;

 

8(iv) Direct the respondent to repay the amount of DCRG of Rs.43,790/- to the applicant with 18% interest;

 

8(v) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed.

 

8(vi) Award cost of the litigation to the applicant.

 

8(vii) Set aside the order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure A/1), order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A/2) and order dated 4.4.2012 (Annexure R/7) with all consequential benefits.”

2. The learned counsel for applicant submitted that at the time of retirement, applicant was holding the post of Deputy Post Master, Khandwa Head Office in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and his basic pay was Rs.20,410/-. However, while paying him retiral dues, the basic pay has been reduced from 20,410/- to 19,960/-. Further, Rs.43,790/- has been deducted from his DCRG, without assigning any reason. The applicant was inducted in the cadre of HSG (II) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and posted as Deputy Post Master at Itarsi Head Office. Thereafter, vide the order dated 12.1.2005, the applicant was sent on deputation to work as Sub Post Master, Harda in the cadre of HSG (I) and he was given the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. Appointment of applicant in the cadre of HSG (I) was approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and orders were issued on 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Thus, there is no justification for reduction of pay of the applicant for retiral benefits and deduction of Rs.43,790/- from DCRG.

3. The respondents, in their reply, have submitted that the applicant was promoted to HSG (I) grade vide the order dated 18.8.2005, Before that, vide the order dated 12.1.2005, he was posted on HSG (I) grade post of Sub Post Master, Harda Head Post Office by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad. Since the applicant was working at that time with the office of Sr. Superintendent Post Offices, Hoshangabad, there was no ground for posting him on deputation basis in one of its offices. Thus, applicant was not entitled to the pay of HSG (I) grade on this posting at Harda as he was still in HSG (II) grade. In any case, applicant was promoted to HSG (II) grade on 29.10.2004 and had qualifying service of only two months as on 1.1.2005 in that grade, he could not have been promoted to HSG (I) grade so early as the qualifying service of three years was required for such promotion. Therefore, when his pension case was prepared, there was objection in regard to his pay fixation on 17.1.2005 in HSG (I) grade when he joined at Harda in compliance of order dated 12.1.2005 of SSPO Hoshangabad. Therefore, applicant’s pay was accordingly refixed and he was grated HSG(I) grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005 when he was actually promoted to that grade. Thus, due to correction of his pay fixation w.e.f 17.1.2005, his basic pay at the time of retirement was changed and applicant has been paid retiral benefits accordingly. Further, excess salary paid to him during this period has been recovered from the DCRG. Thus, the OA, being without any merit, deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and documents annexed therewith. I have also gone throught the writtern arguments filled by learned counsel for the respondents.

5. It is undisputed that the applicant was promoted to HSG (I) grade vide the order dated 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Before that, he claims to be posted on deputation basis on a post of HSG (I) grade. However, the order dated 12.1.2005(Annexure R-1) by which he was posted as Sub Post Master, Harda was issued by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad and since the applicant was already working in his jurisdiction, this posting could not be considered as on deputation. In-fact, this is simply a posting order on vacant post of Sub Post Master, Harda on which the applicant was posted on his own cost for which he may have requested at that time. Thus, applicant was not entitled to get the pay scale of HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 17.1.2005 on the basis of order dated 12.01.2005 (Annexure R-1). Therefore, respondents are not at fault in re-fixing his pay, by treating him promoted to HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005. In view of this correction, basic pay of applicant has been revised and applicant has been paid all the retiral benefits based on this pay. Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted in granting retiral benefits to the applicant based on his revised basic pay of Rs.19,960/- in place of Rs.20,410/-, and no interference with the orders of respondents in this matter, is justified, Therefore, the prayer of the applicant in this regard is rejected.

6. So far as deduction of Rs.43,790/- from the DCRG of the applicant is concerned, this amount has been deducted without issuance of any show-cause notice to the applicant. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Punjab and others etc v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that order, no recovery of excess payment can be made from retired employees or employee who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Since recovery of excess salary has been done after retirement of applicant, such recovery is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents are directed to refund Rs.43,790/- deducted from DCRG of the applicant, within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order. However, no interest shall be payable on that amount.

7. Thus, the O.A is partly allowed. No order on costs.

 

Sd/-

(G. P. Singhal)

Administrative Member

Chandigarh CAT Bench allowed applicant to appear in LDCE for IP Examination 2014

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.060/00660/2014

Order Reserved on 13.01.2015

Pronounced on        30.01.2015

CORAM:    HON BLE MR.  SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J).

                HON'BLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)

Gourav Kumar son of Sh. Satnam Rai, Sorting Assistant, Office of Head Record Officer, RMS LD Division, Railway Station, Ludhiana, Punjab, resident of St. No.2, Dera Baba Badri Dass, Bedi Colony, Ferozepur City......  Applicant

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunication & Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Assistant Director General (DE), Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts (Recruitment Division), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

3. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

4. The Superintendent, RMS LD Division, Ludhiana-141008. ....... Respondents

 

Present:      Sh. Rohit Sharma, counsel for the applicant.

                   Sh. Darshan Gupta, proxy for Ms. Mohinder Gupta, counsel for the respondents.

 O R D E R

BY HON'BLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)

1. This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

(i)  Declare the action of the respondents in not allowing him to participate in the Inspector Posts LDCE, 2014 for promotion to the post of Inspector of Post Offices, without any logic and reason as no intimation of the disqualification of the candidature of the applicant has been communicated to him by the authorities till date as the procedure of examination is fully time bound and as his ACRs are above board and a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect w.e.f. 01.7.2013 to 30.09.2013 has already come to an end and thus, there is no impediment in his participation in the examination and as such action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and based on extraneous consideration.

(ii)     Issue direction to the respondents to allow him to appear in the Inspector Posts LDCE, 2014 for promotion to the post of Inspector of Post Offices as a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for the three months without cumulative effect w.e.f. 01.7.2013 to 30.09.2013 has already come to an end and there is no adverse remark in any of his ACRs for the last 5 years and if he is successful, he may be promoted with all the consequential benefits.

2. When the matter came up for consideration on 11.8.2014, prayer for interim relief was allowed and the applicant was allowed to file his OMR Sheet for the LDCE.  However, it was directed that his final result may not be declared till the decision in this O.A and this position continues till date.

3. Background of the matter is that the applicant was appointed on 27.4.2008 as Sorting Assistant and at present is posted in the Head Record Office, RMS LD Division, Ludhiana.  The next promotion is to the post of Inspector of Posts Offices (Group B Non-Gazetted, Ministerial) in the Pay Band-1 of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- which is governed by rules know as Department of Posts (Inspector Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2013 (Annexure A-2).  As per these rules, the post is to be filled up 1/3rd by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission and 2/3rd by promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

4. The respondents issued notification dated 3.6.2014 for conducting LDCE for the year 2014 (Annexure A-3) and cut off date was mentioned as 1.1.2014 for calculating 5 years eligibility service and age.  Para 9 of the notice provides that the Competent Authority will ensure and certify that (i) No disciplinary action is pending or contemplated against the applicant (ii) no punishment is current against the applicant (iii) no adverse entry in the APAR/ACR in the last five years, before recommending the application of the official for appearing in LDCE.  An Addendum was also issued on 5.6.2014 (Annexure A-4).  Since the applicant considered himself eligible for appearing in the LDCE, he submitted his application dated 26.6.2014 and also moved representation dated 12.7.2014 that he had applied for the I.P. Examination, 2014 but had not received OMR Form, hence he requested for issuance of the same (Annexure A-5, A-6).  Another representation in this regard dated 16.7.2014 was also filed but to no avail.  Hence this O.A.

5. In the grounds for relief the applicant has referred to the following:-

1. Govt. of India, Chief Secretary (Departmental Personnel) O.M. No.21/5/70-Ests.(A) dated 15.5.1971.

2.  Government of India, Chief Secretary, (Departmental Personnel) O.M. No.22011/6/75-Ests.(D) dated 30.12.1976.

He has claimed that these help the case of the applicant since there was nothing against the applicant that could be used to deny participation in the LDCE as penalty imposed on 1.7.2013 had come to an end on 30.9.2003 and ACRs of the applicant for the last 5 years i.e. up to 31.1.2013 are to be considered up to the mark. Thus he is eligible to participate in LDCE and is eligible to be considered for promotion as Inspector of Posts.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents facts of the matter have not been disputed.  It has further been stated that as a result of disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was punished with withholding of next one increment for one year without cumulative effect vide Memo No.B-2/59/Ferozepur/10-11 dated 07.7.2011 (Annexure R-1).  The applicant challenged the punishment orders in the appeal, but could not find favour.  The Appellate Authority upheld the punishment order dated 07.7.2011 vide order dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure R-2).  The revision petition also came to be rejected vide order dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure R-3). In another instance, the applicant was again inflicted punishment of withholding of next one increment for three months without cumulative effect vide Memo No.D-3/Mail/ARR/FZR/11-12 dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure A-1) for refusing to book an article for a member of the public on the plea that article cannot be booked due to shortage of postage stamps.  He refused to book the article even after presentation of same with postage stamps.  Copy of the penalty order awarded was placed in the ACR/APAR of the applicant against relevant year, in accordance with Govt. of India, M.H.A. O.M. No38/12/59-Ests(A) dated 23.04.1960.  The applicant challenged the punishment orders in the appeal but the Appellate Authority upheld the punishment order dated 30.7.2012 vide Appellate order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure R-5).  The revision petition also came to be rejected vide order dated 29.10.2013 (Annexure R-6).

 7. It has also been stated that the penalty imposed upon the applicant had not been set aside or modified by any of the higher authorities and therefore, adverse remarks recorded in APAR remained in operation.  The Postal Directorate, after reviewing the existing pattern and syllabus for LDCE for the category of Inspector Posts, revised the same vide letter No.7-14/2011-SPB-II dated 09.3.2011 (Annexure R-8).  It prescribes assessment of APAR/ACR for the last five years and the competent authority had to ensure and certify that no disciplinary action is pending or contemplated against the applicant; no punishment is current against the applicant and that there is no adverse entry in the APAR/ACR in the last five years, before recommending the applications for participation in LDCE.  In order to fill up the vacancies of Inspector of Posts (66.6% departmental quota) for the year 2014, Postal Directorate vide letter dated 03.2.2014 (Annexure A-3) notified for conducting LDCE-2014 scheduled to be held on 20 and 21.9.2014.  Para 9 of  this notification specified that the competent authority will ensure and certify the following before recommending the application of the aspirants for appearing in LDCE:-

i. No disciplinary action is pending or contemplated against the applicant

ii. No punishment is current against the applicant

iii. No adverse entry in the APAR/ACR in the last five years.

Nodal officers have to verify and ensure that the candidates covered by any of the above should not be permitted to participate in the LDCE even on provisional basis.  In view of the adverse entries in the APARs in the case of the applicant, the application of the applicant was not recommended.

8. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant it has been stated that since currency of punishment was to be considered therefore, right of the applicant to be considered for promotion cannot be denied hence he was entitled to appear in the LDCE.  The following judgments have been cited in this regard:

i. Kishorechand Chandawat vs. State & Ors. on 19 November, 2012 in the High Court of the judicature for the Rajasthan at Jodhpur order S.B. Civil Writ Petition N.8442/2008.

ii. Suraj Mal Soni versus State of Rajasthan decided on the April 16, 1992 in the High Court of the Rajasthan.

iii. Dr. S. Malarkanni M.B.B.S. vs. State of Tamil Nadu on 19 October, 2011.

iv. The Deputy Inspector General of . . . Vs. Rani on 27th April 2011.

v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahbad in case of Rafat Faizan Vs. Gokulprasad Maniklala Agarwal decided on 7 August, 2013.

vi. Delhi High Court in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 1 August, 1997.

9. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard when learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the content of the O.A. and rejoinder.  He further stated that as per the notification dated 01.2.2013 (Annexure A-2) Sorting Assistants along with persons from other categories could appear for the LDCE for promotion as Inspector of Posts. No conditionality had been imposed in this notification and hence para 9 of letter dated 03.6.2014 (Annexure A-3) issued regarding conducting of LDCE for promotion to the cadre of Inspector Posts was beyond the Rules. He pressed that administrative decisions/instructions could not override the provisions of statutory rules and hence the applicant was entitled to participate in the LDCE for consideration as Inspector of Posts.  Learned counsel also cited judgment dated 27.4.2011 of the Madras High Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. Rani in this regard and referred to para 28(1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) which reads as under:

Therefore, after analysis of the entire law on the subject, we answer the reference as follows:

1) During the period of currency of minor punishment, an employee cannot claim as a matter of right to be promoted to the next category merely on the basis that he is otherwise fit for promotion and to that extent, the finding of the Division Bench in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadurep. by its Secretary, Chennai and others [2008 (5) MLJ 350] stands overruled. It is needless to state that after the currency of punishment period, the Government servant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next post, if otherwise eligible.

2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3) The detailed instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.10.1993 issued by the Chief Secretary to Government by order of the Governor, cannot be equated to the statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it can utmost be administrative instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. In any event, the said Government Order does not deal with the case of promotion of a Government servant during the currency of punishment.

4) The Government letter No.18824/S/2005-2, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.10.2005 with annexures 1 to 7 and the letter No.248 (P&AR) Department dated 20.10.1997 are not statutory rules framed under proviso Article 309 of the Constitution of India and cannot be read either with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 or under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules.

5) Consequently, the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of check period viz., one year in the case of censure and five years in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the statutory rules.

               

10. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that Department of Posts (Inspector Posts) Recruitment Rules have been notified on 01.2.2013 but Para 9 of the letter dated 17.6.2013 (Annexure R-9) was not supported by any entry in the Rules.  Para 9 had been included on account of administrative instructions dated 09.3.2011.

11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.  It appears from the material on record that the application of the applicant for appearing in the LDCE for Inspector of Posts was rejected on the ground that his APARs were not satisfactory. This provision that was included in the letter dated 03.6.2013 notifying conduct of LDCE is not supported by any entry in the Department of Posts (Inspector Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2013.  Since it is settled law that administrative decisions/instructions cannot override provisions of statutory rules, the O.A. is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the applicant as eligible for appearing in the LDCE notified on 03.6.2014.

 12. The O.A. is disposed of with these directions.  No costs.

(RAJWANT SANDHU)                                        (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (A)                                                         MEMBER (J)

                         

Place: Chandigarh.
Dated:  30.01.2015 

Good News : Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w grant of GP Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/- decided in favour of applicants

As every member knows that 15 Gr. B Officers and ASPs who have completed 4 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- of Andhra Pradesh Circle has filed OA No. 296 in Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench on 17/3/2014. The applicants have stated in their OA that when a Gr. B officer completes four years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- is eligible to get GP of Rs.5400/-. While so, the applicants are holding Gr. B gazette post (Offg. PS Gr. B and ASP cadre) and completed 4 years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- and they are now eligible for financial upgradation in the GP of Rs. 5400/-.

 

It has been reported by Shri S. Prasad Rao, Circle Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Circle that OA was allowed in today's hearing in favour of applicants. Copy of order is awaited.

 

Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w to grant GP of Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/-.

CAT case OA No. 296/2014 filed before Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench for grant of GP Rs. 5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/- which was posted today for hearing is again adjourned to 14/9/2015. 

Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w to grant GP of Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/-.

It is reported by Circle Secretary, Andhra Pradesh circle that CAT case OA No. 296/2014 filed before Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench for grant of GP Rs. 5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/- posted today for hearing but could not come up and adjourned to 11/9/2015. 
 

BANGALORE CAT JUDGEMENT

The CAT Bangalore ordered that the Postman/Mailguard appointed prior to 1-1-2006 their Pay Scales also should be fixed as the Minimum entry Pay Scales not by multiple of 1.86. CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

 
The High Court Jodhpur upheld the order of Jodhpur CAT.On MACP. CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS
 

Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w to grant GP of Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/-.

It is reported by Circle Secretary, Andhra Pradesh circle that Hyderabad Bench OA No. 296/2014 posted to 10th September 2015.

 

Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w to grant GP of Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/-.

All are aware that Directorate vide Memo No. 1-4/2013-PCC dated 2/7/2015 has communicated the clarification issued by Department of Expenditure stating that "the proposal of Department of Posts seeking concurrence to allow GP of 5400/- in PB-2 on rendering 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- without linkage to the post in the GP of Rs. 4800/- as been examined in this Department and not agreed to". 

15 Gr. B Officers and ASPs who have completed 4 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- of Andhra Pradesh Circle has already filed OA No. 296 in Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench on 17/3/2014. No. of hearings took place in this case. Last hearing was held on 21/7/2015, in which Department has filled counter reply. 

The applicants have stated in their OA that when a Gr. B officer completes four years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- is eligible to get GP of Rs.5400/-. While so, the applicants are holding Gr. B gazette post (Offg. PS Gr. B and ASP cadre) and completed 4 years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- and they are now eligible for financial upgradation in the GP of Rs. 5400/-.

It is learnt that above OA posted for final hearing on 2/9/2015.

Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w to grant GP of Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/-.

All are aware that Directorate vide Memo No. 1-4/2013-PCC dated 2/7/2015 has communicated the clarification issued by Department of Expenditure stating that "the proposal of Department of Posts seeking concurrence to allow GP of 5400/- in PB-2 on rendering 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- without linkage to the post in the GP of Rs. 4800/- as been examined in this Department and not agreed to". 

15 Gr. B Officers and ASPs who have completed 4 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- of Andhra Pradesh Circle has already filed OA No. 296 in Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench on 17/3/2014. The applicants have stated in their OA that when a Gr. B officer completes four years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- is eligible to get GP of Rs.5400/-. While so, the applicants are holding Gr. B gazette post (Offg. PS Gr. B and ASP cadre) and completed 4 years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- and they are now eligible for financial upgradation in the GP of Rs. 5400/-.

It is learnt that above OA posted for final hearing on 14/7/2015 has now posted to 21/7/2015 since the Department has not filed reply statement. 

CHQ has requested to the applicants to study the case properly and attend personally on next hearing with all available records. Not to allow DOP to take the support of above referred memo. 

Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w to grant GP of Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/-.

All are aware that 15 Gr. B Officers and ASPs who have completed 4 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- of Andhra Pradesh Circle has already filed OA No. 296 in Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench on 17/3/2014. The applicants have stated in their OA that when a Gr. B officer completes four years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- is eligible to get GP of Rs.5400/-. While so, the applicants are holding Gr. B gazette post (Offg. PS Gr. B and ASP cadre) and completed 4 years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- and they are now eligible for financial upgradation in the GP of Rs. 5400/-. 

It is learnt that above OA posted to 14/7/2015 for hearing.