Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
VAMAN DATTATRY GADAGKAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, BOMBAY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/1997
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
VENKATASWAMI, J.
The appellant approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Bombay Bench, by filling O.A.NO.96/87 along
with five others. The relief sought before the Tribunal by
the appellant was that he was that he was entitled take
advantage of time Bound once promotion scheme (for short
’TBOP scheme’) introduced by the respondent-department on
17.12.83 The other relief sought was that as and when he is
promoted as lower selection Grade Accountant the benefit of
special pay and also application of FR 22-c must be given to
him. The Tribunal. On an elaborate consideration of the
pleadings and the arguments placed before it, by order dated
27.4.88 held that the appellant and fiver others, who were
applicants before the Tribunal, were entitled to the benefit
of FR 22-c and so far as the appellant is concerned, an
observation was made in the following terms :
"The in case the applicants nos. 1
and 2 secure any promotion in
future as LSG their pay should be
fixed under FR 22 c and not under
FR 22(a) (ii."
The Tribunal negatived the other reliefs sought by the
appellant as well as the other applicants.
Subsequent to the judgment of the Tribunal it appears
the appellant got promotion as Lower selection Grade
Accountant but the Department failed to fix his pay under FR
22-c as directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, he moved the
Tribunal by filling miscellaneous petition No.688/88 for
clarification. Unfortunately, the Tribunal presumably by
mistake rejected the petition by observing as follows:
"In the final order passed in the
judgment delivered on 27.4.88
applicant No. 1’s claim was
rejected. Applicant cannot be given
the relief as claimed in M.P No.
688/88."
Under these circumstances, the above appeal has been
filed by special leave. We heard counsel on both sides at
length an perused the relevant documents. We do not propose
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
to deal at length regarding the rejection of the
appellant’s claim for the benefit of TBOP scheme as the
Tribunal has discussed in detail and we are in agreement
with the reasonings given by the Tribunal. Further, the
issue such in one sense has become academic a that cadre of
Accountants in the pay scale of Rs. 380-620 was abolished on
and from 22.2281.
So far as application of FR 22-c to the appellants is
concerned we find that there is substance in the arguments
of the learned counsel for the appellant. we have noticed
that the Tribunal while passing the main order in O.A.No.
96/87 granted the relief regarding the application of FR 22-
c. However, in the clarification petition, that was wrongly
denied by the Tribunal. Further it is brought to our notice
that the Government themselves had conceded this claim
generally as evidenced by the letter issued by the Assistant
Director General (PE.II), Government of India, ministry of
communications Department of Posts, New Delhi a copy of
which has been produced. In the circumstances, we hold that
the appellant is entitled to the benefit of FR 22-c and
accordingly his pay should be fixed when he was promoted as
LSG Accountant. In the result., the appeal is partly allowed
to the extent mentioned above. No. order as to costs.