UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M. MATHIVANAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 09-06-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
V. 
M. MATH IV ANAN 
JUNE 9, 2006 
B 
[ARlJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Service law: 
C 
Army Postal Services-Time Bound Promotion Scheme-Paragraph /-
An employee entitled to the benefit under Paragraph I on mere completion of 
16 years of service-It is only in Paragraph 2 onwards, that requirement is 
of regular service. 
Respondent was enrolled in Reserve Training Pool as Postal Assistant 
D in the year 1981. In 1983, he volunteered for enrollment in Army Postal 
Services. In September, I983, while he was working in Reserve Training 
Pool as Postal Assistant, he was asked by the Superintendent of Post 
Offices, Cuddalore Division to appear before the authorities for selection 
in Army Postal Services. Accordingly, he appeared and was selected as 
Warrant Officer witb effect from September 30, 1983. By an order dated 
E October 20, 1983 tile respondent was appointed as Postal Assistant in 
Cuddalore Division with effect from September 30, 1983. After bis 
enrolment in the Army Postal Services, an order was passed by Hon'ble 
the President of India appointing him on the establishment of Regular 
Army with effect from September 30, 1983. 
F 
A Time Bound Promotion Scheme was formulated by the authorities. 
Respondent hzd shown his willingness for being governed by the said 
scheme. The respondent was appointed as Postal Assistant on 'regular' 
basis from July 18, 1989. He was transferred to Cuddalore Division and 
joined there on August 4J, 1991. In 1999, the respondent made an 
G application to the Superintendent of Post Office, Cuddalore Division for 
granting benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme as he had completed 
sixteen years considering the starting point of September 30, 1983. 
His name was not considered for Time Bound Promotion Scheme 
H on the ground that he had not completed 16 years of service. He appealed 
30 
le 
U.0.1. v. M. MA THIVANAN 
31 
before the Superintendent of Post Offices which was dismissed. 
Aggrieved respondent filed application before the Administrative 
Tribunal which was allowed and affirmed by High Court. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The respondent had completed sixteen years of service in 
1999; he would be entitled to the benefit of paragraph I of Time Bound 
Promotion Scheme and the action of the authorities in not granting the 
said benefit was illegal and contrary to law. [39-E[ 
A 
B 
c 
2.1. Paragraph I of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme makes it 
clear that so far as placing of an officer in the 'next higher grade' is 
concerned, what is relevant and material is that such official belonging to 
basic grades in Group 'C' and 'D' must have completed "sixteen years of 
service in that Grade". The said paragraph, no where uses the connotation D 
'regular' service. Paragraph 2 which provides for Departmental 
Promotion Committee and consideration of cases of officials for 
'promotion', provides for sixteen years of 'regular' service. Thus, in other 
paragraphs, the service was qualified by the adjective 'regular', the said 
qualification was not necessary for the purpose of paragraph 1. [36-E-G[ 
2.2. Since the employee wanted the benefit of placement in 'next 
highl'r grade', what was required to be established by him was that he 
E 
had completed sixteen years of service in the grade and the said 
requirement had been complied with in view of the fact that with effect 
from September 30, 1983 he was appointed as Warrant Officer. He was, 
therefore, entitled to the benefit of 'next higher grade' under paragraph F 
1 from 1999. [36-G, H; 37-A[ 
Dwijen Chandra Sarkar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1999[ 2 SCC 
119 and Union of India & Anr. v. V.N. Bhat, (2003[ 8 SCC 714, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5739 of2005. G 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 6.4.2003 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in Writ Peition No. 25452 of 2002. 
Mohan Parasaran, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri, V.K. Venna and Shreekant 
N. Terdol for the Appellants. 
H 
32 
SUPREME COURf REPORTS (20061 SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
S. Nanda Kumar, K. M.ayk Samy, G. Ananda, A. Santha Kumar and 
V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. This appeal is directed against an order dated 
B April 3, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras 
Bench in O.A. No. 1094 of 2001 and confirmed by the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras on April 16, 2003 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.