High Court · 2025

petition under Article 226 of the bonstitution of lndia praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavil filed therewith, the High court -may oi"a."a to issue any writ or order more particutarly in the nature of yll of th" records pertaining.to the order dated 't1 1'l'2013 in 6Jrtil,ll,-Oy o-a.ruo.tzs5 of zo{l on the file of the central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Hyderabad and set aside the sadne as illegal, unjust and contrary to law. g"nin "rfring'fo|. "t l.A. NO: 1 oF 20141WPMP. NO: 41 724 0F 20141 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in Court may be pleased to the affidavit filed in support of the p"iition, ll"^^nl'gn !rrp""Jlt'" operation oithe order aatedll"tlzol3 in oA No' 1253 of 2011 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench' ii;i;;;i"; p;;;ing ;isposar of the above writ petition' in the interest of lustice' '-- Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G'R'S'AKHILESHWAR FOR SRI GADI inavEerl KUMAR, Dv. sollclroR GENERAL oF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1:'SRl M'VENKANNA Counsei for the RgsPondent No.2: - ' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BI,E SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BI-I] SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AI,ISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.33375 OF 20t4 ORDER: (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

11..77.2013, passed in O.A.No.1253 of 2071 by tLLe Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bencfu Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') 2 Heard Sri G.R.S. Akhileshwar, learned counsel representing the learned Dcputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners ancl Sri M. Venkanna, learned counsel for respondent No.] .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contet-rded that respondent No.l was appointed as Extra Departmental Mail Man in the year 7977. While he was working as such, he has appeared for examinatiorr for promotion to the post of Mail Mary rvhich was held on 25.05.1980. After passing the said examinatior.r, he was appointed as \4ai1 Man on 28.05.1980. Even before his services r 2 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P.N0.33375 of 2014 .l were confirmed as Mail Maru he was successful in Mail Guard examination and he was appointed as Mail Guard on 31'01'1981' After eight years, he has appeared for examination for appointment to.the post of Sorting Assistant and after clearing the said examination, he was appointed as Sorting Assistant on28'07'1989' After completion of 16 years of service, he was given Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) on 21,.07.2006.

4. It is the case of respondent No.1 that after introduiiot-t of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, he became eligible for third financial upgradation on completion of 20 years of service in the cadre of Sorting Assistant. Therefore, he submitted representation, dated 28.02.2011., for extension of third MACP to him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that third MACP could not be granted to respondent No.1 because he was absent to duty for 4 years 11 months 15 days and the petitioners have treated the said absence period as dies non' ztide proceedings, dated 28.03.1990. When third MACP was not t 3 AKS,J & LNA,J W P.No.33375 of 2014 extended to respondent No.1, he has approacherl the Tribunal by filing the subjt.ct O.A. and the Tribunal , ,icle impugr.,ed order, dated 11.11.201 3, was pleased to dispose of the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No.1, without appreciating any of the contentions raise,C by the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended i that when the absence period of 4 years 11 months 15 r1a;1Q was treated as dies n,on, the same cannot be counted as qualifying service and thererfore, the question of extending third irlACp to respondent No 1 would not arise. Learned counsel further contended that .espondent No.1 would be eligible for thirc MACP only from 25-01.|2076, but respondent No.1 has retired frorn service in the year 2013 itself. Therefore, the question of extending third MACP to respondent No.1 would not arise. Therefore, apprropriate orders be passed in the Writ petition by setting aside the irrrpugned order, dated 71.71 .2073, and allow the Writ petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent N.o.1 had { \- contended that juniors"to respondent No.1 were grantecr third 4 AKS,J & LNA'J w.P.No.33375 of 2014 MACP on completion of 30 years of service' Admittedly' respondent No.1 was appointed as a Mail Guard on 31'01'1981 and he had retired from service in the year 2013' which would mean that he has completed 30 years of service' Therefore' respondent No.1 is entitled for third MACP' The Tribunal has rightly allowed the subject O.A. by relying on the judgment' dated 20'12'2072' passed in O.A.No.3756 of 2011 by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. Therefore. there are no merits in the Writ Petitiol and the same is liable to be dismissed'

8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the leamed counsel for the parties' is of the considered view that the absence period of 4 years 11 months 15 days was treated as dies non, which would mean that it is a dead service' It cannot be considered as qualifying service for grant of third MACP' Therefore, the Tribunal erred in disposing of the subject o'A' in favour of respondent No'1' Admittedly' respondent No'1 has not completed 30 years of service and the q""ttigttg "lending L 5 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P.No.33375 of 2014 MACP to resprondent No.1 would not arise. Therr:fore, the impugned order, dated 71.17.2013, is liable to be set asicle

9. Accordirrgly, the Writ Petition is allowed ancl the or<ler, dated

11.11.2073, pa:;sed in O.A.No.1253 of 2017 by the Central Administrative'lribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellanerous Applications, if any, pending in Lhis,. Writ Petition shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi hai been made absolute as above' THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY ur JANUA...T I r!- -/witnessrHEH-o.ll?+Dr*E#"rl'$,iRv'ffi dY:l',?5its'^1t'*"i'^i#"$'; ' //TRUE COPY// ASS) l \i sD/-K. AMMAJI GISTRAR OFFICER To irE"[fi$# ]'ff ,* --ffi ;#ffi;t'-" ' t fi:*J'itui'[i'3i,Hxvt?',f,It,?Jx'{"',"3"&'BI$a'sE*u*o'o' . $'?;trE'.tJr N,,l VENKANNA' Advocate toPUCl 7. Two CD CoPies; PSK. BS Hr- i I | !c' o U o 1HE SI4 ,( \ ( ll4 Ythr. ?-!:ii t - - * ,., f Sohrr1\(" y' s-r--j:,- HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 ORDER WP.No.33375 of 2014 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Cq "d-^ W,