UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHAKEEL AHMAD BURNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Union of India challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 21.12.2012 in which the respondent -applicants' claim for retention of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme benefits, in terms of the Central Government's Circular of 28.06.2011, and the proposal to withhold/withdraw it, was considered.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent -applicant was initially a Group 'D' employee who was subsequently appointed as Postal Assistant; the petitioner applied the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme and the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) which enabled the respondent -applicant to avail of financial upgradation. The third, financial upgradation, on account of MACP Scheme was granted, but subsequently sought to be withdrawn, on the basis that mobility from Group 'D' to Postal Assistant was on account of promotion. The respondent -applicant contended that this mobility or upgradation was done on account of direct recruitment and not on promotion and that as a result, he was entitled to the MACP benefit of third upgradation.

(3.) THE petitioner -Union of India is aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent it holds that movement from Group 'D' post to the post of Postal Assistant is direct recruitment; it is argued that such movement is in fact, a "promotion". It is contended that the order of Jodhpur Bench in Bhanwar Lal Regar (supra), has been stayed by the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. He also stressed that the judgment in Bhanwar Lal Regar (supra) itself has been differed from by the CAT in another Bench's decision.