SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order dated May 20, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1810/2011 wherein prayer of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of Second Assured Progression Career Scheme w.e.f. August 9, 1999 and also for the entitlement of arrears from the said date has been rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner had joined the service in the office of Pay and Accounts Office, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as a Junior Accountant on July 7, 1979. On account of qualifying the JAO (C) Examination conducted by the Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, petitioner got first promotion on January 6, 1987 and was promoted to the post of Junior Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on March 5, 1992 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200. On August 9, 1999, Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short referred to as the ,,ACP Scheme) was introduced by the Government for the Central Government Employees to deal with problems of genuine stagnation and hardships being faced by them due to lack of promotional avenues. The said scheme became operational from the date of issue of O.M. i.e., dated August 9, 1999. Under the said scheme, the first financial up gradation was allowed after completion of 12 years of service and second after completion of 24 years of service. Further provision was made under the Scheme that where an employee who had already got two prior promotion on regular basis, no benefits under the said scheme was available to him. In the present case, petitioner had got two promotions, i.e., one to the post of Junior Accounts Officer in the year 1987 and the other to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 1992, as such, the respondents did not sanction the benefit of ACP scheme to the petitioner. Aggrieved with the same, petitioner filed aforesaid OA before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE Tribunal interpreted para 5.1 of the OM dated August 9, 1999 in question and observed that under the said OM, no benefit was admissible to an employee who had already been granted two promotions prior to coming into force of ACP Scheme and it is the petitioners own case that he was granted first promotion on January 6, 1987 and thereafter again given second promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on March 5, 1992 and he had already earned two prior promotions on regular basis before the ACP Scheme became operational, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief. Aggrieved with the same, present writ petition is filed.