WORKMEN OF CPWD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arise before us for consideration in this Writ Petition directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2429/2005, and MA No.2138/2005 dated 7th November 2005, is whether the Respondent committed any illegality while issuing a clarification in respect of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme dated 9.8.1999, vide DOP and T Office Memorandum dated 21.5.2001 to the following effect:

(2.) The Petitioners 2 to 7 were regularized as Mason/Khallasi/Wireman/Operator(EandM)/Beldar, by the Respondent sometime between 1986-1993. The Petitioners claim that they have completed more that 12 years of regular services and consequently, under the Assured Career Promotion scheme dated 9.8.1999, they became entitled to benefit of the said scheme. Petitioner No.1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. Petitioner No.2, 4, 5 and 6 viz. Ram Sahay, Sher Singh, Dviwedi A.K., and Joginder Singh, are stated to be regular mason, wire man and Operators (EandM) i.e. Group `C' employees, Petitioner Nos. 3 and 7, viz. Manvar Singh and Bulle Ram are stated to be regular Khallasi and Baildar, i.e. Group `D' employees. The pay scale of Group `D' employees is Rs.2550-3200 while the pay scale of Group `C' is Rs.3550-4590. The Petitioners claim that under the Assured Career Promotion scheme they are entitled to first financial up gradation after 12 years of regular service in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 for Group `D' employees and Rs.4000-6000 for Group C employees. However, they complain that the Group `D' employees have been placed in lower pay scale of Rs.2610-4000 and Group C employees have been denied the benefit of the ACP Scheme altogether.

(3.) The Petitioner submits that for getting the benefit of Assured Career Promotion scheme, under the said scheme, there was no such requirement of clearing the trade test and the respondents may hold a screening process only for considering their cases for promotion to the next higher post in their channel of promotion. They contend that by issuing clarifications the Assured Career Promotion scheme could not have been supplemented but only supplanted. By issuing the impugned classification, it is contended, the respondents have taken away the benefit to which the petitioners were entitled. The Petitioner's contend that the Assured Career Promotion scheme dated 9.8.1999 no where provides for any condition of passing the trade test or securing a license etc . As best, the Respondents were entitled to hold a DPC for screening the candidates to assess the eligibility as provided for under the Assured Career Promotion scheme like having qualification, if any, prescribed for the said purpose, but the same does not include the requirement of passing a trade test required or obtaining the requisite license.