JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. Heard Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for the Central Government, appearing for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad and others, including the Union of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 06.04.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.785 of 2002. 3. The 1st respondent herein B. Krishna Murthy is the applicant in O.A. 4. The O.A was preferred to declare that the applicant be deemed to have been promoted to Higher Selection Grade-I (in short ‘HSG-I’) in pursuance of upgradation of HSG-II posts to HSG-I from 30.06.2001, as per letter No.22- 1/99/PE.I (Vol.II) dated 30.03.2021, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi with all consequential benefits, such as, payment of arrears of pay in HSG-I from 01.07.2001 to 30.11.2001 and also revision of pension, gratuity, commutation and other attendant benefits by holding the action of the respondents in O.A, the present petitioners 1 to 3 and the present respondent No.4 (respondent No.4 in O.A.) in not promoting the applicant to HSG-I in terms of letter dated 30.06.2001 as illegal and arbitrary. 5. The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on 23.03.1962 and worked in various capacities like Sub-Postmaster, Office Assistant, Assistant Postmaster etc., and finally retired on 30.11.2001 after serving nearly 40 years. The applicant while in service was given Lower Selection Grade (in short ‘LSG’) promotion on passing 1/3rd LSG examination and Biennial Cadre Review (in short ‘BCR’) cadre promotion during 1991 on completion of 26 years of service and since then he worked in the said cadre till his retirement on 30.11.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Department of Posts accorded sanction vide Order No.22-1/89-PE.I (Vol.II) dated 30.03.2001 for creation of 1622 posts in the HSG Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- by suitably upgrading the same number of existing HSG-II posts in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with immediate effect by simultaneously abolishing 690 existing live posts of PAs/SAs in the scale of Rs.4000-6000/- proportionally and directed the Heads of Circles to identify the number of HSG-II posts as indicated against their Circle and upgrade them to HSG-I as per the guidelines. So far as A.P.Circle was concerned, 143 posts were to be upgraded by abolishing 61 posts in order to find out matching savings. 6. The case of the applicant was that there was a specific direction by the Government of India, Department of Posts, in the Order dated 30.03.2001, directing the work of identification of posts, holding of DPC and placement of officials against the posts to be completed as early as possible. It was also directed that the concerned Internal Financial Adviser should ensure proper implementation of the above instructions and that compliance report had to be sent to SO (PE-I) by 30.06.2001. The applicant’s case was that instead of completing the process of implementation and placement of officials against HSG-I before 30.06.2001, the Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle delayed and issued order in memo No.EST/2-35/2001, dated 12.10.2001 according sanction for creation of 101 HSG-I posts in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- by upgrading the same posts of norm-based HSG-II with effect from 30.03.2001 by abolishing 43 posts in PA/SA cadre in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- towards matching grants. 7. The further case of the applicant was that 101 posts of HSG-I posts were created by upgradation and as the applicant was included at serial No.30 in BCR Gradation list as on 01.09.2001, he ought to have been considered for such upgradation on the basis of his length of service and merit. The 1st respondent-Chief Postmaster General vide letter No.ST/4-2/GL/XXIII, dated 04.01.2002 promoted as many as 91 HSG-II officials to HSG-I (General Line) in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/-, but the name of the applicant was not included without any justification. Several juniors to the applicant were given HSG-I grade. Raising such grievance, the applicant filed O.A.No.785 of 2002. 8. The main contention of the petitioners/respondents in O.A. was that as the applicant retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.11.2001, he was not considered for upgradation to HSG-I granted to other employees with effect from 04.01.2002, as at that time, the applicant was no more in service. Their case was that as per the clarification issued by the Union of India vide proceedings dated 01.04.2002 the upgradation will not be from the date of upgradation order i.e., 30.03.2001 but only after the date of DPC approving the candidates for such promotion. In view thereof, the applicant was denied the benefit. 9. Their case was that as per the clarification issued by the Union of India vide proceedings dated 01.04.2002 the upgradation will not be from the date of upgradation order i.e., 30.03.2001 but only after the date of DPC approving the candidates for such promotion. In view thereof, the applicant was denied the benefit. 9. The Tribunal allowed the O.A and directed the petitioners herein to convene a review DPC and including the cases of all those who were entitled for promotion as on 30.03.2001 and in case they were found suitable, to promote them notionally from that date and refix their pay and pension and other consequential benefits as per their eligibility and directions of Government of India, within a specified period and to issue revised order. The operative part of the Tribunal judgment is as under: “The respondents are directed to convene a review DPC including the cases of all those, who were entitled for promotion as on 30.3.2001 and in case they are found suitable, to promote them notionally from that date and refix their pay and pension and other consequential benefits as per their eligibility and directions of Government of India. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months and revised orders with the consequential benefits with respect to fixation of pay may be extended to the applicant with effect from 30.3.2001, in case he be found suitable and eligible.” 10. The Tribunal held that the respondents therein, the present petitioners, misquoted the clarification dated 04.01.2002, with respect to the date of implementation of the order i.e., the date of meeting of the DPC. The Office letter dated 03.04.2002 of Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, was contrary to the Presidential Order dated 30.03.2001, which stipulated that orders for upgradation would take immediate effect, i.e., the date of issue of the orders. The Tribunal further observed that the Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi-1 also clarified in his letter dated 15.11.2001 that the upgradation of 1622 posts of HSG-II and LSG to the HSG-I grade had been ordered in accordance with Cabinet decision and the upgradation should take effect from 30.03.2001. The Tribunal was of the view that the orders to that effect had been issued in the name of President and there was no option for the present petitioners changing the date of effect to these orders. The Tribunal was of the view that the orders to that effect had been issued in the name of President and there was no option for the present petitioners changing the date of effect to these orders. The Tribunal also observed that the effect of those orders was from 30.03.2001 and in several Circles, the effect to the upgradation of posts was given from later date, which was in violation of the orders dated 30.03.2001 and that was ordered to be rectified so that the upgradation takes effect from 30.03.2001. 11. The Tribunal observed that the PMG, Kurnool violated the clear cut directions issued by the Government of India with respect to the implementation of orders dated 30.03.2021, issued after Cabinet approval and to support of wrong action quoted the clarification issued by the office of the Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad-1 that the promotion against upgraded posts was to be given from the prospective date on which the promoted officials assumed the charge. Such action of the Postmaster General was not sustainable being in clear violation of the instructions of the Government of India and the effect of the upgradation had to be given from 30.03.2001. 12. Challenging the aforesaid order, dated 06.04.2005 of the Tribunal, the present writ petition was filed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the only ground that on the date of meeting of DPC i.e., 04.01.2002, the 1st respondent/applicant was not in service. He had already retired on 30.11.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation, and consequently, his case was not considered. On the date of consideration of DPC he was not in service. 14. The 1st respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. 15. There is also no representation on his behalf. 16. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 17. On the date of consideration of DPC he was not in service. 14. The 1st respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. 15. There is also no representation on his behalf. 16. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 17. The Sanctioned letter issued by the Department of Posts for creation of 1622 posts in HSG Grade-I is as under: “No.22-1/89-PE.I (Vol-II) Dated: 30.3.2001 Sub:- Upgradation of 1622 posts HSG-II to HSG-I grade -0- The President is pleased to accord sanction for creation of 1622 posts in the HSG-I grade in the Pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- by suitably upgrading the same number of existing HSG-II posts in the pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000/- with immediate effect as per the details Circle wise at Annex-A. As a result of this upgradation and along with 206 posts upgraded earlier to HSG-I grade vide this office letter of even number dated 6-11-95, 10% of HSG-II posts stand upgraded to HSG-I grade. These posts of HSG-II shall be upgraded to HSG-I by simultaneously abolishing 690 existing live posts of PAs/SAs in the scale of pay Rs.4000- 6000/- proportionally as indicated Circle-Wise in Annexure-A (Col.4). The order to be issued by the Circles for upgradation of posts should include a clause mentioning the fate of abolition of posts in the cadre of P.A. with reference to its original sanction order. Heads of Circles are requested to identify the number of HSG-II posts as indicated against their Circle in the Annexure-A and upgrade them to HSG-I under intimation to this office. It may be ensured that these HSG-II posts are upgraded on functional basis, identification being done on the basis of following guidelines. i) Posts of HSG-II Head Postmaster at district Head Postmaster at district Head Quarters where no HSG-I post exists at present and identification of HSG-II posts in SB branches in major Head Offices. The CPMG should identify the district based on its importance/work load in the Regions, Postal and RMS offices. ii) Other HSG-II posts in Gazetted HO supervised by HSG-II, carrying higher responsibilities, Circle/Regional Office PO and RMS Divisions (administrative and operative offices). PSD/CSD and Customer Care Centres (CCC) which are considered important by the Heads of Circle. The CPMG should identify the district based on its importance/work load in the Regions, Postal and RMS offices. ii) Other HSG-II posts in Gazetted HO supervised by HSG-II, carrying higher responsibilities, Circle/Regional Office PO and RMS Divisions (administrative and operative offices). PSD/CSD and Customer Care Centres (CCC) which are considered important by the Heads of Circle. iii) These posts should also be distributed from amongst SBCO staff (to whom the TBOP scheme was extended vide letter No.20-2/88-PE.I dated 26.7.91) where these HSG-I posts are justified as per the norms. iv) As per SIU norms there is a justification of one post of Office Supdt in each Circle (Administrative Office) in HSG-I grade. At present every Circle Office has the post of Office Supdt. in HSG-I grade except Haryana, H.P and North East, Circle Heads of these Circle are requested to upgrade the post to HSG-I level in their respective Circle from amongst their quota allotted. v) It may also be ensured that the ratio between HSG-II and HSG-I in the Circle at a particular unit may be maintained as far as possible as per the norms. The work of identification of posts, holding of DPC and placement of the officials against the posts should be completed as early as possible. Concerned IFA may ensure proper implementation of the above instructions. Thereafter, a compliance report to this effect i.e., posts upgraded, unit-wise distribution of posts, abolition of posts etc., may be sent to S.O. (PE.I) by 30.6.2001. The mode of recruitment for the upgraded post will be by the method of selection as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the HSG-I posts for the concerned Unit. The expenditure involved in this sanction is debitable to the relevant heads and should be met from the sanctioned grant for the respective year. The respective Circles will retain these posts on year to year basis themselves. This issue with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance vide their U.O.No.2(5)/E.III/94 dated 23-2-2001 and in consultation with the Internal Finance Advice vide their I.D.No.152/FA/2001 dated 28.3.2001.” 18. A perusal of the aforesaid Circular dated 30.03.2001 shows that the upgradation of existing HSG-II posts, in total 1622 posts, was with immediate effect as per the details circle-wise at Annexure-A. With respect to A.P. Circle 91 posts were upgraded. The 1st respondent was at serial No.30 in B.C.R. Gradation List. A perusal of the aforesaid Circular dated 30.03.2001 shows that the upgradation of existing HSG-II posts, in total 1622 posts, was with immediate effect as per the details circle-wise at Annexure-A. With respect to A.P. Circle 91 posts were upgraded. The 1st respondent was at serial No.30 in B.C.R. Gradation List. We are of the view that the case of upgradation of HSG-II posts to HSG-I grade and the 1st respondent coming within the upgradation posts i.e., posts in HSG-II grade and the upgradation being with immediate effect i.e., from 30.03.2001, he could not be denied consideration for such upgradation, if he was otherwise eligible, had the consideration made as per the letter dated 30.03.2001 by 30.06.2001. The said fact is not in dispute. 19. The only contention is that on the date of DPC he was not in service. We find that the entire exercise had to be completed by 30.06.2001, but the same was not so done. The 1st respondent though retired on 30.11.2001, but if the exercise had been conducted pursuant to the directions under circular dated 30.03.2001, the case of the 1st respondent/applicant was also required to be considered. Because of the fault of the petitioners in not conducting DPC in time, the 1st respondent cannot be held liable or be penalized. The upgradation being with effect from 30.03.2001 and at that time, the 1st respondent being in service and by the time the compliance had to be made i.e., 30.06.2001 and on that date also the 1st respondent being in service, we are of the view that the Tribunal did not commit any error in passing the order under challenge for direction to the petitioners to consider the case of the 1st respondent if he was otherwise eligible and to extend the benefits, as awarded by the Tribunal. 20. The Tribunal found that even the S. K. Region, DPS, Bangalore in its order dated 03.10.2001, ordered promotions to take effect from 30.03.2001 and in case of those who retired were given notional promotion with effect from 30.03.2001 and their pay scale was also revised even though DPC met much later and orders were issued in the month of October, 2001. The Tribunal also referred to order of the Tribunal at Lucknow Bench in O.A.No.509/2001 that the employees were entitled for promotion from the date of eligibility, and not from the date of ordering promotion on account of the delay in holding the DPC, which delay could not be attributed to the employees. 21. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed before us. When in the case of others, may be in different zone, the retired employees were given the benefit of upgradation with effect from 30.03.2001, though the DPC in their cases also met after their retirement, the applicant/1st respondent herein could not be denied the same benefit. The Tribunal has rightly granted the benefit with subsequent benefits to the applicant/1st respondent. 22. We do not find any force in the writ petition. 23. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 24. Let the petitioners comply the Order of the Tribunal, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today. 25. Let compliance report be sent to this Court through Registrar General which the Registrar General shall place on the record of this writ petition. 26. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.