Yogendra Prasad vs D/o Post

O.A./497/2021

(Reserved on 28.10.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.497 of 2021
th
.
Day of October, 2026
Pronounced on this the 30
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Yogendra Prasad aged about 63 years son of late Jagarnath Ram R/o
Village Imilia, post Chharwa, District Balia.
​ ​ ……….. Applicant
By Advocate: Shri B.N. Singh
​ ​ Versus
1. ​ Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Communication
and information (I&T), Sansad Marg Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.​ The Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3.​ Sr. Post Master Head post office, Varanasi.
4.​ Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, East Division Varanasi.
… Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
​
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following
reliefs:-
“(ii)​ To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record
and direct the respondents to provide annual increment
since 11.12.89 to 31.12.2020 with all consequential
benefits.
(iii)​ To issue a suitable time bound order or direction to the
respondents to release the entire arrears of annual
increment, re-fix the pension after adding the annual
increment, re-fix the pension after adding the annual
increment and other emoluments payable to the applicant
as consequence of the aforesaid annual increment from
the due date, along with interest @ 9 % as might be
fought just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
(iv)​ To pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Page 1 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

(v)​ To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.”
2. ​ Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was initially
appointed as postal assistant on 22.05.1987 at Mughalsarai on
compassionate grounds and was on probation for two years. The
applicant completed two years probation period after which the
respondent authority issued an order dated 11.12.1989 declaring
the applicant along with other officials as suitable to be declared
permanent. The applicant has stated that he was declared
permanent on 11.12.1989. The applicant is aggrieved that he was
entitled for annual increment every year but the respondent
authority did not grant the same. The applicant made several
representations but no heed was paid. The applicant retired from
service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2020.
3.​ I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4.​ Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
respondent authority has not provided a single increment during
the whole service period i.e. 22.05.1987 to 31.12.2020 while his
services have been confirmed on 11.12.1989. He argued that this
is highly unjust that an employee is not granted a single increment
or the benefits of MACP during the entire unblemished service of
about 33 years. Thus, prayer was made to direct the respondents to
provide annual increments from the date of confirmation i.e.
11.12.1989 till the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2020 along with
interest.
5.​ Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the
applicant joined the services on 22.05.1987 and superannuated on
31.12.2020. At the time of appointment of the applicant, as per
directorate instructions the applicant was required to pass
confirmation examination within 2 years of joining and in case he
did not pass, the probation would be extended to a maximum four
years during which he shall be allowed two additional chances.
Failing to clear the confirmation exam would entail stoppage of
increment which was confirmed and continued in schedule ‘10’ of
the Gazette Notification issued by the Department of Posts on
Page 2 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

09.01.2002 (Annexure No. CA-1). It is further submitted that the
applicant completed two years without passing confirmation
examination, so he was confirmed. There was a further condition
that if the direct recruit fails to pass the said confirmation
examination in four chances within two years, the probation
period will be extended to a maximum four years, within which he
shall be allowed two additional chance of normal confirmation
examination and/ or two special chances. Three increments were
paid to the applicant in the anticipation of passing confirmation,
i.e. his basic pay was increased from 975/- to 1000/- in 1988, then
to 1025/- in 1989 and 1050/- in 1990, but the applicant did not
pass after availing the maximum number of chances. Therefore,
his increment was stopped. Learned counsel for the respondents
thus argued that getting confirmation of permanency and getting
increment are two different conditions. The applicant was not
eligible for any increment, therefore, there is no question of
granting MACP to him.
6.​ Learned counsel for the applicant has rebutted the contention of
learned counsel for the respondents with the averment that as per
recruitment rules for organized service it is provided that on
completion of the period of probation or any extension thereof,
officer shall, if considered fit for permanent appointment, be
retained in their appointment on regular basis and be conformed in
due course against the available substantive vacancies, as the case
may be. It is an admitted fact that the applicant completed the
probation period and was confirmed in substantive vacancies,
hence he is entitled to all service benefits of regular employees.
The applicant completed prescribed training before completing the
probation period and also completed prescribed training after
completing the probation period and got 93% marks. After
considering the training marks and examination marks the
respondent authority passed the conformation order dated
11.12.89. As per rule if an employee has not completed
satisfactory service and not passed the confirmation examination
then his service can be dispensed with but the applicant completed
Page 3 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

prescribed training and passed the examination thereafter the
respondents passed the order dated 11.12.1989 and declared him
permanent hence the applicant is entitled to all service benefits.
He argued that the office memorandum has been issued regarding
confirmation of probation period after completing the prescribed
training. The applicant has already completed prescribed training.
It is further submitted that the Department of Post issued an order
dated 16.4.2016 regarding probation /confirmation of direct
recruitment in the department of posts who obtain 60% marks in
the test in order to come out of training successfully. The applicant
got 93% marks in training.
7.​ The applicant has mentioned that the department of posts
formulated the Time Bound Promotion Scheme vide a
memorandum dated 17.12.1983. The scheme, inter alia, provided
placing of officers in the 'next higher grade' who had completed 16
years of service in Group 'C' and 'D'. The Scheme came into effect
from 30.11.1983. The applicant was appointed on the post of
postal assistant in regular grade pay Rs..975-25-1150-10-1660
group 'C' in year 1984 and confirmed/permanent after completing
probation period but respondent authority has not provide the
benefits of TOBP Scheme to provide the next higher grade after
completion of 16 years service. He referred to the judgement by
the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Union of India vs. M
Mathivanan reported in 2006 LawSuit(SC)480 in the matter of a
postal assistant who completed 16 years service and was not
granted benefit of scheme of Time bound promotion. The Hon'ble
Apex court decided and held that paragraph 1 of the scheme
provides 16 years service in that grade. The Hon'ble court held
that the basic eligibility condition for being placed in the next
higher grade is that the officer must have completed 16 years
service in the basic grade in group 'C 'and 'D'. The applicant
completed 16 years service in 1999 and is entitled to the benefits
of the TOBP Scheme. Thus, he argued that the said denial is
wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the scheme of 1983 and also
the decision of Hon'ble Apex court.
Page 4 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

8.​ I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the entire documents on record.
9.​ The peculiar facts of this case have already been stated above. The
applicant is aggrieved that he has not been granted any increment
during his entire service whereas the respondents argue that the
applicant is not eligible for increment as he did not pass the
confirmation examination even after availing the maximum
number of attempts.
10.​ The respondents refer to the notification dated 09.01.2002
annexed as CA-1 to the counter affidavit with regard to the
provision of eligibility for grant of increment. Perusal of the said
notification by the Department of Post as annexed with the
counter affidavit, mentions as a note that “ In case a direct recruit
fails to pass the said confirmation examination in 4 chances
within 2 years, the probation period will be extended to a
maximum of 4 years, within which he shall be allowed two
additional chances of normal confirmation examination and or
two special chances. Failure to do so will entail stoppage of
increments or confirmation or both. ”
11.​ The order dated 11.12.1989 passed by the respondents reads as
under:-
“​ DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
OFFICE OF THE SR. SUPDT OF POST OFFICES EAST DN. VARANASI
Memo No. B-2/115 Dated at Varanasi 1 the 11.12.89

​ In pursuance of Directorate D. O. letter no. 45-2/88-S
PB-II dated 7.4.88 and circulated vide Chief Postmaster
General U.P. Circle Lucknow letter no. STA/A-83/11/12 dated
14.4.88 I, Rajesh Mishra, Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices Varanasi (E)
Dn. being satisfied having regard to the quality of work conduct
and character of the following officials that they are suitable to
be declared permanent in their cadre after completing the 2
years satisfactory service, hereby order the same.
1.​ Shri Yogendra Prasad, PA Moghal Sarai.
2.​ “​ Rajendra Prasad PA Varanasi HO
3.​ “​ Manna Lal, PA Varanasi HO
4.​ “​ Sheo bhawan Misra, PA. H.O.
5.​ “​ Radhey Shaym Singh PA HO
Page 5 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

6.​ “​ Arvind Kumar Singh PA. Vsi. HO
7.​ “​ Shyam Narain, Wireman, D.O.
8.​ “​ Smt. Meerabi Devi Sweeper, P&T Disp. Varanasi

Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices
East Dn. Varanasi
12.​ The above order clearly shows the applicant as suitable to be
declared permanent in his cadre after completing two years
satisfactory service. There was no disciplinary action against the
applicant due to which his increments and career progression have
been affected. The applicant has duly completed the requisite
training for the service, scored high marks and served the
department till his superannuation. The respondents have
themselves submitted that the applicant’s services have been
confirmed and he was granted three increments (even though in
anticipation of his passing the confirmation examination) and then
argued that confirmation and grant of increments are two different
things. The respondents averred that the applicant was not eligible
for grant of any increment as also for the benefit of the schemes
formulated for ensured carrier progression as he did not pass the
confirmation examination by exhausting all the attempts. It is
surprising how an employee can be kept in service without
confirmation and grant of increment for about thirty three years.
The applicant had been appointed against a regular post and
served on it for nearly three decades. Having been appointed on a
regular post on compassionate grounds, if the applicant was not
found fit for confirmation, he should have been removed from
service instead of having been condemned to a stagnant service
and pay. When the applicant completed all the requisite training
with a meritorious score and the Senior Superintendent himself
found him suitable to be declared permanent after completion of
two years of satisfactory service, any denial of service benefits at
par with the other regular permanent employees of the department
to the applicant is nothing but unfairness. The government has
also brought out schemes for assured career progression from time
to time to ensure that an employee does not have to face financial
Page 6 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

stagnation in his service period. Arbitrary or permanent denial of
increments across decades without a valid legal or disciplinary
foundation violates service laws and principles under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. The applicant in the present case has
been made to face such an adverse situation and the ground for it
is the provision of notification dated 09.01.2002. The said
notification does not specify a permanent stoppage of annual
increment for the entire service till retirement and even if it
implies so, it is against the principle of natural justice and
fundamental right to equality.
13.​ In connection to the present case, it must also be observed that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2471 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 6185/2020)
decided on 11.04.2023 has affirmed that an increment is earned
automatically by rendering continuous service with good conduct
over the preceding year. The relevant portion of the aforesaid case
law is reproduced hereinunder:-
6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants
that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it
is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee
has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but
he is not in service the day on which the increment is
accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue,
the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is
required to be considered. A government servant is granted
the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while
rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to
officers with good conduct unless such increments are
withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with
efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering
service with good conduct in a year/specified period.
Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered
service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time
scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be
said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering
the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore,
as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment
on the eventuality of having served for a specified period
(one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the
government servant has retired on the very next day, how can
he be denied the annual increment which he has earned
and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good
conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. In the case
of Gopal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the
Delhi High Court has observed and held as under: -
Page 7 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

(para 20)
“Payment of salary and increment to a central
government servant is regulated by the provisions of
F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn
monthly by a central government servant and
includes the increment. A plain composite reading of
applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual
increment is given to a government servant to enable
him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and
allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of
the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an
appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject
to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay
rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a
maximum. The increment in case of progressive
appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to
mean that increment accrues from the date following
that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken
cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a
central government servant is a progressive
appointment and periodical increment in pay from a
minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure.
Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment
accrues from the day following which it is earned.
This increment is not a matter of course but is
dependent upon good conduct of the central
government servant. It is, therefore, apparent that
central government employee earns increment on the
basis of his good conduct for specified period i.e. a
year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is
thus an integral part of progressive appointment and
accrues from the day following which it is earned. ”
14.​ In view of the above, unless the services of the applicant were
unsatisfactory (which is not the case in the present matter as is
clear from the letter dated 11.12.1989), or there was any penalty
resulting from any disciplinary proceeding (which is also not the
case here and even in the case of penalty it is mandatory to specify
the period for withholding an increment as well as its effect on
future increments), it is illegal, unjust and against the fundamental
rules to utilize the services of a regular government employee for
decades without giving him the duly earned annual increments in
his pay at par with other government servants.
15.​ Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed . The respondents are hereby
directed to grant annual increments that are due to the applicant
since 11.12.1989 till his retirement on 31.12.2020 with all
Page 8 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI

O.A./497/2021

consequential benefits including the arrear thereof and, if
otherwise eligible, he should also be granted the benefit of time
bound career progression schemes adopted by the department
from time to time for the benefit of the permanent employees of
the department. The aforesaid exercise should be completed
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
16.​ All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.


( Justice Om Prakash VII)

​ ​ ​ Member (J)
Madhu
​​ ​
Page 9 of 9
MADHU
KUMARI