UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 28/11/2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A. No.3684/2013. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. preferred by the respondent by directing the petitioners to extend the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) to the respondent w.e.f. 1/9/2008 as against 21/9/2010, vide which the said benefit was extended to him by the petitioners as per the order dtd. 19/7/2012.

(2.) The respondent, who was the applicant before the learned Tribunal, joined the Central Water Commission (CWC) as a Research Assistant on 16/11/1972 and was working with the Central Soil and Material Research Station (CSMRS), which was in 1981 delinked from the CWC and placed directly under the Ministry of Water Resources. Based on his seniority and performance, the respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officer on 15/5/1987, and thereafter to the post of Research Officer (later re-designated as Scientist 'B') on 21/9/2000. Even though the respondent thereafter became eligible for being considered for promotion to Scientist 'C', he could not be considered for the said post due to the pendency of a writ petition before this Court pertaining to the procedure and parameters to be followed for promotion to the post of Scientist 'C'. Consequently, the respondent superannuated on 31/10/2011 without being considered for promotion.

(3.) Even though the respondent was deprived of the opportunity to be considered for promotion, the petitioners, in 2012, vide their order dtd. 19/7/2012 extended the benefit of the 3rd MACP to the respondent w.e.f. 21/9/2010. Since the respondent had joined service on 16/11/1972 and had consequently completed thirty years of continuous service on 16/11/2002, he approached the petitioners by way of representations for antedating the date of grant of 3rd MACP to him to 1/9/2008, i.e., the date when the MACP scheme was introduced. Upon his representations being rejected, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of an OA which came to be allowed vide the impugned order.