BINA CHADHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 485/2011.

(2.) The necessary facts which have led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Ministry of Commerce & Industry in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS) and later on sought transfer in the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Mumbai. She tendered her technical resignation and joined the office of DGFT, Mumbai on 30.09.1978. Vide order dated 1.08.1983 she was appointed as Junior Hindi Translator (JHT). As per the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of August, 1979, for the post of Junior Hindi Translator (JHT), the matter of recruitment was prescribed as "by deputation failing which by transfer and failing both by direct recruitment". Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as JHT, subject to the approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) vide the office order dated 01.08.1983. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Hindi Translator (SHT) and further as Hindi Officer in due course. In this case while the respondents claim that since the petitioner has been granted three upgradations/promotion in the posts of JHT, SHT and Hindi Officer, she is not entitled to any other benefit under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme or Modified ACP Scheme, the petitioner's stand is that her appointment to the post of JHT was not a promotion but a direct recruitment and, therefore, her appointment to the post of JHT should not be taken as upgradation/promotion and she is entitled to one more upgradation under the MACP Scheme. The petitioner retired in the year 2010. In 2011, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 485/2011 which was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2011.

(3.) Mr. D. R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and based on wrong facts. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was directly recruited on the basis of her qualification i.e. MA in Hindi and other experience with regard to translation and not promoted as stated by the respondents to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.