Postal Service Group B officers must complete four years’ regular service for Grade Pay ₹5,400.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Postal Assistant, was promoted on an ad hoc basis to Postal Service Group ‘B’ on 4 November 2004 and appointed to that cadre on a regular basis with effect from 31 December 2007. He was posted as Superintendent of Post Offices in the U.P. Circle.

Pursuant to the Department of Posts’ order dated 4 November 2008, Grade Pay of ₹5,400 was granted to Postal Service Group ‘B’ officers who had completed four years of service. The applicant was initially included in the list of beneficiaries with effect from 1 January 2006, but his name was subsequently deleted on the ground that he had not completed four years of regular service in the cadre as on that date.

He retired on 30 April 2011 and made representations seeking the benefit. After an earlier OA resulted in a direction to decide his representation, the respondents rejected his claim on 6 October 2016, communicated on 17 October 2016.

The applicant challenged that rejection and relied on similarly placed officers who had allegedly been granted Grade Pay of ₹5,400.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to Grade Pay of ₹5,400 despite not having completed four years of regular service in Postal Service Group ‘B’ as on the relevant date.

2. Whether the applicant could claim parity with the other Postal Service Group ‘B’ officers who had been granted Grade Pay of ₹5,400.

3. Whether the applicant’s ad hoc service could be counted towards the four-year service requirement in light of Union of India v. M. Mathivanan.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29 August 2008, which modified the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations and provided that Group ‘B’ officers of the Department of Posts would receive Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-2 on a non-functional basis after four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800.

The Tribunal held that the Department of Posts’ order dated 4 November 2008 had to be interpreted consistently with the governing Resolution, even though that order referred generally to “four years of service”.

It also considered Union of India v. M. Mathivanan, 2006 (6) SCC 57, where ad hoc service was counted under a distinct Department of Posts time-bound promotion scheme; however, the Tribunal held that the principle was inapplicable because the present case concerned a separate Sixth Pay Commission benefit expressly governed by the requirement of four years’ regular service.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had entered Postal Service Group ‘B’ on a regular basis only on 31 December 2007 and had retired on 30 April 2011, before completing four years of regular service in that cadre.

Although the Department of Posts’ order dated 4 November 2008 did not expressly use the word “regular,” the Tribunal held that the underlying Ministry of Finance Resolution was the source of authority for that order and contained an unequivocal regular-service requirement.

Accordingly, the applicant’s earlier ad hoc service could not satisfy the applicable condition.

The officers cited by the applicant were not similarly situated because each had completed four years of regular service in Postal Service Group ‘B’ before or upon becoming eligible for the higher Grade Pay.

M. Mathivanan did not assist the applicant because it concerned a different time-bound promotion scheme and a differently worded service requirement.

The OA was dismissed as devoid of merit, the connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.