UNION OF INDIA Vs. L N GIRIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order at Annexure-a, dated 11-6-1999 passed by the central administrative tribunal, Bangalore bench, allowing the application filed by the respondent and granting the reliefs prayed for.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are, the respondent has been working as assistant accounts officer in the postal department. The department formulated a scheme to grant incentives for acquiring higher professional qualification in institute of cost and works accounts of India (in short "icwa examination") examination. According to the scheme, two advance increments will be granted after passing inter examination and four more increments after passing the final examination. Respondent passed the intermediate examination during December 1994. When she claimed advance increments as per the scheme, she was granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 4,000/ -. This was based on the official memorandum dated 28-6-1993 by which the system of granting advance incentives had been modified replacing by payment of one time lumpsum incentive. Thereafter the respondent submitted representations on 28-8-1996 and 8-11-1996 to grant advance increments as per the old scheme which was in force. The request was rejected vide communication dated 19-6-1997. Thereafter, the respondent filed another representation on 17-8-1998 reiterating her request and quoting the case of one K. A. Balagopalan, who was similarly placed and who was granted the similar relief which has been rejected in the case of the respondent. Even that representation also was rejected by endorsement dated 23-9-1998. The respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal seeking to set aside the said endorsement and for a direction to grant her advance increments instead of lumpsum incentive. The tribunal after examining the entire matter allowed the application and directed grant of advance increments and to deduct the lumpsum amount of Rs. 4,000/- paid to the respondent. The said order is challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Ashok harnahalli, learned central government standing counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. a. kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent.