You are on page 1of 2

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH

SUO MOTO REVIEW


IN OA NO. 563/PB/2004
O.A. NO. 1016/2001

Chandigarh: this 17th day of February, 2005

Om Parkash Bhagat s/o Shri Gian Chand


Assistant Sub Postmaster (Retd)
Now R/o 3540/14, Gali No. 13, Haripura
P.O. Jawala Flour Mills, Amritsar
…..Applicant

(By Shri C.L. Gupta, Advocate)


-Versus-

1. Union of India, Ministry of Communication


& I.T. through Secretary-cum-Director General,
Department of Posts,
New Delhi -110001
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle
Chandigarh
3. Senior Superintendent Post Offices,
Amritsar Division, Amritsar

……..Respondents
(By: Shri Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate)

ORDER

( By: Hon’ble Mr. Kuldip Singh, Vice Chairman)

This Bench while hearing OA No. 563/PB/2004 had observed that since there was divergent
opinion expressed in various judgments, the judicial discipline require that the matter be
referred to be Full Bench and the following question was referred to be Full Bench:-

a) Whether an employee covered under BCR Scheme is entitled to the benefit of


promotion from the date he completes 26 years of service or from the date when
DPC recommends the case of the applicant.
b) Whether the circular dated 31-10-95 vide which the instructions have been issued to
hold DPC meeting twice in year is violative of the original BCR Scheme issued on
11-10-1991.
2. This order was passed on 12th January, 2005. However, vide order dated 14th
January, 2005 in OA No. 7/JK/2003, a Full Bench of this Tribunal had decided the
same controversy and rendered the second reference on the same issue futile
exercise.
3. Since the Full Bench decision has been brought to our notice now, we take suo moto
action to review the order passed in OA No. 563/PB/2004.

4. We also called Shri C.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Deepak
Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents and heard them also.

5. It appears that they were also not aware that controversy referred by us to the Full
Bench had also been referred at Jammu during circuit sitting nor they were aware
that the matter had already been heard. The question referred to the Full Bench was
"whether the benefits under BCR Scheme dated 11-10-1991 are to be granted from
the date one completes 26 years of satisfactory service OR from the crucial dates of
1st January or 1st July, as the case may be, which is based on the Biennial Cadre
Review of posts to be placed against such identified for upgradation from these
crucial dates each year as per subsequent clarifications." The Hon'ble Full Bench
answered the question in the following manner:-

"The benefit under the Biennial Cadre Review Scheme dated 11-10-1991 has to be
granted from the date one completes 26 years of satisfactory service."

6. Whether an employee covered under BCR Scheme is entitled to the benefit of


promotion from the date he completes 26 years of service or from the date when the
DPC recommends the case of the applicant. Since the Full Bench has decided the
question, we are of the considered opinion that reference on the same question
again to the Full Bench has been rendered meaningless and we can follow the
decision given by the Full Bench in this OA also. Accordingly, we review our order
dated 12-01-2005 vide which we had referred the matter to the Full Bench. Now,
since the Full Bench has also decided the issue, we can proceed to decide the OA
itself. As the Full Bench had answered that an employee is entitled for grant of
benefit under the BCR from the date one completes 26 years of satisfactory service,
we hold that in this case also the applicant is entitled for the grant of BCR benefit
from the date he has completed 26 years of satisfactory service. As such, we allow
the OA and hold that the applicant is entitled to the grant of benefit under BCR
scheme w.e.f. 12-01-2002 on which date he completed 26 years of satisfactory
service with all consequential benefits. The OA is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/-
( L.M. MEHTA) (KULDIP SINGH)
MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN