JUDGMENT : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Shravan Singh, respondent of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12145/2011 was the original applicant of OA No.35/2010. Padam Singh, petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1469/2012 was the original applicant before the Tribunal in OA No.36/2010. 2. By a common judgment dated 12th November, 2010, whereas OA No.35/2010 has been allowed, OA No.36/2010 has been dismissed. 3. The Union of India is aggrieved by the relief granted to Shravan Singh. Padam Singh is being aggrieved by the relief not being granted to him. 4. Both the applicants before the Tribunal predicated their claim on a decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of one Om Prakash Maurya. 5. Relevant facts to be noted would be that Shravan Singh was appointed as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) on provisional basis with effect from 27th March 1999. The post was redesignated as Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM). He was paid salary fixed at Rs. 1280/- being the minimum in the pay scale of Rs. 1280-35-1980/-. He was claiming benefit of annual increments and pleaded that Om Prakash Mauriya, a similarly situated employee has been granted the benefits of the increments. 6. Qua him the stand of the respondents was that the post in question at Post Office Sanwalta became vacant on account of promotion of one Kishori Das and because of the sudden creation of the vacancy, Shravan Singh was appointed on temporary basis with effect from 27th March, 1999. It was made known to him that his services could be terminated when regular appointment was made. For some reason or the other the vacancy could not be filled up on regular basis and thus Shravan Singh continued to work on the post. The appointment was labeled as provisional. It was pleaded that entitlement for wages would be as per the clarificatory OM dated 5th March, 1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts. 7. As regards Padam Singh the stand taken was that one Kailash Chandra holding the post proceeded on deputation. On his recommendation Padam Singh was appointed as a substitute with effect from 13th August, 1998. Reliance was placed on the clarification memo dated 5th March, 1999 to repel his claim for increments to be granted. His claim for annual increments were also denied. 8. On his recommendation Padam Singh was appointed as a substitute with effect from 13th August, 1998. Reliance was placed on the clarification memo dated 5th March, 1999 to repel his claim for increments to be granted. His claim for annual increments were also denied. 8. We find that both applicants before the Tribunal also claimed bonus which has been denied to them. Whereas Shravan Singh has not challenged the said denial of relief to him, we find that in the writ petition filed by Padam Singh his grievance relates only to denial of increments. 9. Drawing a distinction between a provisional appointee and a substitute the view taken by the Tribunal is that whereas a provisional appointee occupies a vacant slot, a substitute does not occupy a vacant slot. This distinction has been drawn by the Tribunal keeping in view the fact that the post on which Padam Singh was appointed as a substitute was held by Kailash Chandra, who retained the lien when he proceeded on deputation. 10. Though the Tribunal has noted the defence taken with reference to the OM dated 5th March, 1999 but we find no discussion therein except to an order dated 26th August, 2010 passed in OA No.14/2010 filed by one Hukam Singh. 11. In what manner facts of Hukam Singh’s case warranted said decision to be applicable in the instant proceedings has not been brought out by the Tribunal. 12. We thus note that on 5th March, 1999, the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts issued a clarificatory memorandum with reference to certain clarifications sought by the Post and Telegraph department. Pertaining to remuneration to be paid to substitute and provisional appointees, the question to be answered was at serial no.10. Its response was put under the caption ‘clarifications’. The question was put under the caption ‘points’. Point no.10 and clarification thereto reads as under:- Points Clarifications 10. Whether payment to substitute or provisional appointee will be made at the rate equal to that of incumbent of the post (a) For substitute and provisional appointment during the period 1.1.96 to 28.2.1998 payment will be made by increasing the basic monthly allowance by a factor of 3.25% & in terms of the Directorate OM No.26-1/97-PC&ED Cell dated 17.12.98. (b) the substitute and provisional appointee will be paid at minimum of TRCA only w.e.f. 1.3.98. 13. (b) the substitute and provisional appointee will be paid at minimum of TRCA only w.e.f. 1.3.98. 13. At the outset we note that the office memorandum draws no distinction between a substitute or a provisional appointee and thus the endeavour made by the Tribunal to draw a distinction between a substitute or a provisional appointee is misplaced. To some extent the Union of India is also responsible for in its pleadings in the two OAs before the Tribunal an attempt was made to argue that for a substantive vacancy provisional appointment is made and where a person proceeds on deputation and retains lien on the post, a substitute is appointed. The issue was to the payment of wages in the context of annual increments to be accorded or not. As per the OM, for substitute and provisional appointees who were appointed on provisional or a substitute basis between January 1, 1996 to February 28,1998, basic monthly allowance had to be increased by a factor of 3.25%. Meaning thereby annual increments in the grade had not to be paid. This is as per clause (a) of the clarification to point no.10. As per clarification clause (b) the substitute and the provisional appointees had to be paid at the minimum of the scale with effect from 1st March, 1998. Meaning thereby those who were appointed after 1st March, 1998 were entitled to be paid only at the minimum rate. 14. As noted above the two original applicants before the Tribunal were appointed after 1st March, 1998. 15. Neither applicants challenged the vires of the clarificatory office memorandum which granted benefit of increments to those appointed prior to 28th February, 1998 and those who were appointed after 1st March, 1998 and thus we proceed on the basis that the entitlement has to be as per the office memorandum. 16. This would mean that irrespective of the appointment being as a substitute or a provisional two applicants before the Tribunal would be entitled to be paid wages at the minimum of TRCA. 17. Thus denial of relief by the Tribunal to Padam Singh is correct and grant of relief to Shravan Singh is equally incorrect. 18. The writ petition filed by Union of India is disposed of setting aside the impugned order in so far as it grants annual increments in the grade to Shravan Singh. 17. Thus denial of relief by the Tribunal to Padam Singh is correct and grant of relief to Shravan Singh is equally incorrect. 18. The writ petition filed by Union of India is disposed of setting aside the impugned order in so far as it grants annual increments in the grade to Shravan Singh. In terms of the office memorandum he would be paid wages at the minimum of the scale. 19. The writ petition filed by Padam Singh is dismissed since he is being paid wages at the minimum of TRCA. 20. No costs.