w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others v/s S.N. Singh Bhati


Company & Directors' Information:- E N COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92132DL2005PTC143469

Company & Directors' Information:- T C COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105354

Company & Directors' Information:- J J COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300WB1997PTC085828

Company & Directors' Information:- P. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92141DL1984PTC017748

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- T I COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109HP2009PTC031079

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64201WB2010PTC145582

Company & Directors' Information:- P N COMMUNICATION P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U32204DL2001PTC111327

Company & Directors' Information:- A B AND U COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MH1997PTC107160

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND D COMMUNICATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120GJ1997PLC031879

Company & Directors' Information:- P & G COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2013PTC251505

Company & Directors' Information:- P J COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC105416

Company & Directors' Information:- M K COMMUNICATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72900HP2006PTC030292

Company & Directors' Information:- H V COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52602DL2009PTC193309

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92132DL2001PTC110975

Company & Directors' Information:- B. M. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64100DL2012PTC244419

Company & Directors' Information:- H. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64100DL2013PTC255831

Company & Directors' Information:- B R COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64203DL2002PTC114477

Company & Directors' Information:- N S N COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64100KA2014PTC073757

Company & Directors' Information:- N A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC182901

Company & Directors' Information:- G & D COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64200MP2007PTC019633

    Writ Review Petition Nos. 171 of 2016 & 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, 48, 51 to 54, 109, 114, 115, 117, 121, 123, 124, 144, 148, 152 to 154, 185, 189 of 2017

    Decided On, 03 January 2018

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

    For the Petitioner: B.P. Bohra, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.P. Singh, Kuldeep Mathur, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Civil Misc. Applications No.73/2017, 71/2017, 72/2017, 74/2017, 76/2017, 85/2017, 560/2017, 561/2017, 105/2017, 106/2017, 559/2017, 224/2017, 421/2017, 234/2017, 564/2017, 239/2017, 242/2017, 243/2017, 252/2017, 259/2017, 261/2017, 262/2017, 563/2017, 562/2017 and Review Petitions:

1. Above captioned review petitions seek review of the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2015 dismissing 24 writ petitions filed by the review petitioners and as a result upholding the decision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench.

2. Review petitions have been filed with delays ranging from 33 days upto maximum of 435 days delay. Defects notified by the Registry have not been cured for over one year.

3. Be that as it may, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits.

4. Issue concerned was whether Mailman/Extra Departmental Agents/Gram Dak Sewaks appointed as a Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant were liable to be treated as having been promoted or it was a case of direct recruitment. This in turn impacted the benefit of placement in the higher grade under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme. The view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal is that it is a case of direct recruitment and not a case of promotion.

5. The writ petitions as noted hereinabove were dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that similar is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.30629/2014, Union of India & Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar & Anr. against which decision SLP(C) No.4848/2016, Union of India & Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16th August, 2016 after condoning the delay. Review sought of the order dated 16th August, 2016 vide Review Petition (C) No.1939/2017 was dismissed by the Supreme Court as recently as on 13th September, 2017. Learned counsel further submit that even a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition 200807/2016, The Union of India & Ors. vs. Shri Basanna Nayak has taken a similar view. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that in the Madras Circle and Karnataka Circle the decisions have been implemented.

7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner does not dispute aforesaid facts pertaining to the decisions of the Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court having attained finality on the same issue. The decision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal brings out that Group-D employees, irrespective of their seniority participated in a merit based selection and appointed to the higher post were never treated as a case of promotion. The examination was not a Limited Departmental Qualifying Examination but was a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Before the MACP Scheme was introduced the department had a TBOP/BCR Financial upgradation Scheme and under the said Scheme benefit was granted treating

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the appointment as one of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. 8. Thus we find no merit in the review petitions which are dismissed and since we are dismissing the review petitions on merits we are not going into the issue whether sufficient cause has been shown in the delay to be condoned.
O R