Confirmed Postal Assistant Denied Annual Increments For Decades, CAT Orders Increments And Arrears From 1989

The applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant on compassionate grounds on 22 May 1987.

By an order dated 11 December 1989, the department found him suitable to be declared permanent after two years’ satisfactory service.

The respondents contended that he had failed the confirmation examination despite being given the permitted attempts, and that increments had therefore been stopped; they acknowledged that three increments had been paid in anticipation of his passing the examination.

The applicant claimed that he had been denied annual increments and career-progression benefits for the remainder of his service.

He retired on 31 December 2020 and sought arrears, pension refixation and consequential benefits.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the application.

The Tribunal considered the Department of Posts’ notification dated 9 January 2002, which provided for stoppage of increments, confirmation, or both upon failure to pass the confirmation examination after the prescribed chances.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Director, KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, decided 11 April 2023, the Tribunal stated that an annual increment is earned by rendering the specified period of service with good conduct and efficiency, unless withheld as punishment or linked to efficiency.

The judgment also referred to the service-pay principles in FR 9(21) and Articles 43 and 151 of the CSR, as discussed in the quoted passage from Gopal Singh, and invoked Article 14 in addressing arbitrary denial of increments.

The Tribunal found that the 11 December 1989 order recorded the applicant’s satisfactory service and suitability to be declared permanent; there was no finding of unsatisfactory service or disciplinary penalty.

Although the respondents relied on the confirmation-examination rule, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had been retained in regular service for about 33 years and had received three increments in anticipation of passing the examination.

It held that the notification did not specify permanent stoppage of increments throughout the applicant’s service and that such prolonged denial, absent an identified service or disciplinary basis, was unjust and inconsistent with the principle that increments are earned through qualifying service.

The Tribunal separately directed that career-progression benefits be granted only if the applicant was otherwise eligible.

It further directed that he be granted the benefits of applicable time-bound career-progression schemes if otherwise eligible.

The exercise was to be completed within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no order as to costs was made.