FTP CASE – CAT JUDGEMENT

Copy of CAT Chennai Judgement dated 24-03-2004 on OA No. 440 of

2003
FINAL ORDER
Central Administrative Tribunal: Madras Bench
Wednesday, the 24th day of March 2004 (24-3-2004)
Present
The Hon’ble Shri. S. Manickavasagam, Member (A) and
The Hon’ble Shri. G. Shanthappa, Member (J)

OA No. 440 of 2003

1. D.Babulal
2. The All India Postal Emp. Union Gr. ‘C’ Tamil Nadu Circle
..…Applicants
Vs.
1. UOI rep. by the Director General
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2
…..Respondents
Mr. K.M. Ramesh………. Advocate for the applicant
Mr. S. Muthuswamy…..Advocate for the respondents

Order: Pronounced by the Hon’ble Shri.Manickavasagam, Member (A)

1. We have heard both sides and perused the records.

2. As mentioned earlier, A-1 got his HSG.II only on 17-2-2003. For
getting the promotion to the next higher grade, viz. HSG.I he is
required to put in three years of service in that grade. Thus this
applicant becomes eligible for promotion to the next higher grade, viz.
HSG.I only after 17-2-2006. Under these circumstances we do not
think that he is justified in approaching this Tribunal at this stage
seeking promotion to HSG.I or challenging the new RRs at this point of
time. That apart, when he is not even eligible for consideration of
promotion we are of the considered view that the applicant can hardly
challenge the RRs. Therefore in far as A-1 is concerned, there is no
case.
3. Applicant No. 2 (A-2 for short) has come before this Tribunal
representing that he belongs to the Postal Employees Union and
therefore he may be permitted to join as A-2 applicant association. It
is stated that the A-2 has joined along with other in this OA in order to
protect the interests of the other Gr. C employees who are similarly
placed like the A-1.
4. We gave our careful consideration to this aspect of the matter even
though MA was initially allowed at the time of admission of this OA.
5. It may be noted that the RRs came into force by a notification
dated 24-1-2002. Thereafter, the respondents have announced
the departmental examination only in 2003. As of now, the full
impact of the RRs is not yet known. We further of the considered
view that the Union as of now can hardly interfere in a generalised
manner in matter relating to promotions, where the eligibility criteria
stipulated the number of years as one of the basic qualifications.
 Therefore we do not think that the A-2 applicant association’s request
to agitate the matter on this issue can be entertained.
6. As mentioned earlier, it is open to them to take up the issue through
the department machinery provided for this purpose. That apart, if
the applicant is otherwise not even eligible for consideration
for promotion for the HSG.I, having regard to his date of
promotion to the HSG.II is concerned, there is hardly any
apprehend any problem in future regarding the RRS, they
should take it up with the respondents at the first instance
before approaching the Tribunal.
7. In the light of the discussion above we hold that the OA as framed is
premature and the same is dismissed as devoid of merit without any
order as to costs.
*********