http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: VAMAN DATTATRY GADAGKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, BOMBAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/04/1997

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T VENKATASWAMI, J.      The appellant  approached  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal, New  Bombay Bench,  by filling  O.A.NO.96/87 along with five  others. The  relief sought before the Tribunal by the appellant  was that  he was  that he  was entitled  take advantage of  time Bound  once promotion  scheme (for  short ’TBOP scheme’)  introduced by  the respondent-department  on 17.12.83 The  other relief sought was that as and when he is promoted as  lower selection Grade Accountant the benefit of special pay and also application of FR 22-c must be given to him. The  Tribunal. On  an elaborate  consideration  of  the pleadings and the arguments placed before it, by order dated 27.4.88 held  that the  appellant and fiver others, who were applicants before the Tribunal, were entitled to the benefit of FR  22-c and  so far  as the  appellant is  concerned, an observation was made in the following terms :      "The in  case the applicants nos. 1      and  2   secure  any  promotion  in      future as  LSG their  pay should be      fixed under  FR 22  c and not under      FR 22(a) (ii."      The Tribunal  negatived the other reliefs sought by the appellant as well as the other applicants.      Subsequent to  the judgment  of the Tribunal it appears the   appellant  got  promotion  as  Lower  selection  Grade Accountant but the Department failed to fix his pay under FR 22-c as  directed by  the Tribunal.  Therefore, he moved the Tribunal by  filling miscellaneous  petition  No.688/88  for clarification. Unfortunately,  the  Tribunal  presumably  by mistake rejected the petition by observing as follows:      "In the  final order  passed in the      judgment   delivered   on   27.4.88      applicant   No.   1’s   claim   was      rejected. Applicant cannot be given      the relief  as claimed  in M.P  No.      688/88."      Under these  circumstances, the  above appeal  has been filed by  special leave.  We heard  counsel on both sides at length an  perused the relevant documents. We do not propose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

to     deal  at   length  regarding  the  rejection  of  the appellant’s claim  for the  benefit of  TBOP scheme  as  the Tribunal has  discussed in  detail and  we are  in agreement with the  reasonings given  by the  Tribunal.  Further,  the issue such  in one sense has become academic a that cadre of Accountants in the pay scale of Rs. 380-620 was abolished on and from 22.2281.      So far  as application  of FR 22-c to the appellants is concerned we  find that  there is substance in the arguments of the  learned counsel  for the  appellant. we have noticed that the  Tribunal while  passing the  main order in O.A.No. 96/87 granted the relief regarding the application of FR 22- c. However,  in the clarification petition, that was wrongly denied by  the Tribunal. Further it is brought to our notice that the  Government  themselves  had  conceded  this  claim generally as evidenced by the letter issued by the Assistant Director General  (PE.II), Government  of India, ministry of communications   Department of  Posts, New  Delhi  a copy of which has  been produced. In the circumstances, we hold that the appellant  is entitled  to the  benefit of  FR 22-c  and accordingly his  pay should be fixed when he was promoted as LSG Accountant. In the result., the appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. No. order as to costs.