UOI Vs. RAMESH CHANDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India (UOI), by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 21.05.2009 in O.A. No. 685/2008. The CAT had directed the grant of second financial upgradation under the prevailing Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) to the respondent. Apparently, such benefit had been granted to the respondent (hereafter referred to as "the employee") but subsequently withdrawn. His unsuccessful representations impelled him to approach the CAT.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the employee was first appointed to the service of the petitioner in the year 1974 as Mazdoor in the pay scale 50 -940/ -. In accordance with the then existing policy, "in -situ" promotion or upgradation was given to him, with effect from 01.04.1992, in the pay scale of Rs.800 -1150/ -. This was through an order dated 15.12.1993. The respondent's name was shown at S. No.15 and one Sh. Sahab Singh's name was at S.No.8. He too was granted first in situ promotion in respect of another pay scale. The respondent was subsequently promoted, in accordance with the rules, to the grade of Binding Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.950 -1500/ - by order dated 08.05.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner interpreted the ACP scheme formulated by it and had recommended the grant of the second financial upgradation to the petitioner in accordance with its provisions. Later, apparently on a rethinking, that recommendation, sought to be made effective from 09.08.1999, was withdrawn.

(3.) THE UOI in its petition contends that the CAT has committed an error in ignoring the in situ promotion. It also contends that the CAT's reliance upon the previous ruling in Sahab Singh v. UOI and Ors. (O.A. no. 799/2005, decided on 02.05.2006) is wrong. Its interpretation, with respect to the clarification dated 10.02.2000, is that W.P.(C) 13849/2009 Page 3 the promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1992, to the grade of Machine Attendant, is within the hierarchy and not outside it. The UOI also contends that the DoPT had clarified that the post of Labourer in the Government of India Press had to be treated as common category of posts under clarification 56 of the Office Memorandum dated 18.07.2001, and could be allowed two ACPs in the pay scale of Rs.2650 -4000/ - (S -3) and Rs.3050 -4590/ - (S -5) only. It is, therefore, contended that the grant of second upgradation at Rs.4000 - 6000/ - is not permissible in terms of the scheme itself.