UNION OF INDIA Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway and Anr. has challenged the order dated 14th September, 2009 passed in OA No. 2049/2008 titled as Lal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the original application filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioners were directed to issue orders of pay fixation as per financial up-gradation granted to the respondent and to ensure payment of arrears to him. The petitioners were also directed to re-fix his retiral dues as the respondent has retired from 31st July, 2006. The respondent was aggrieved on account of not granting benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme even though according to the respondent orders were issued in the case of other employees granting similar benefit as claimed by the respondent which were extended to other persons but declined to the respondent. The respondent was appointed in 1972 as a Gangman (a Group 'D' post) and as a storeman in 1986. The respondent contended that as a storeman he was entitled for the benefit of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme from the scale of 2650-4000 to that of 3050- 4590 and in support of his plea, he relied on an office order dated 16th March, 2005, which was issued in respect of some other employees of Allahabad Division.

(2.) The respondent also claimed financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme on the ground that a written examination was scheduled on 10th December, 2005 for storeman under the consideration zone and the respondent along with similarly other eligible storemen had appeared in the examination and the other similarly situated persons was granted benefit of financial up-gradation. The petition was contested by the petitioners contending inter- alia that the order dated 16th March, 2005 relied on by the respondent was not relevant for the purpose of respondent and that no post of storeman existed in Civil Engineering Department of Allahabad Division. The petitioners also contended that the substantive post of the respondent was of Gangman (Group-D category post) and consequently, the respondent was not eligible for grant of financial up- gradation and the orders relied on by the respondents were issued on account of administrative errors.

(3.) Petitioners also contended that claim of up-gradation from 2650- 4000 to 3050-4590 is also not tenable as it involves jump of two grades whereas under the ACP Scheme up-gradation only by one grade is contemplated.