UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents, a Sepoy in the Special Customs Preventive Divisional Office and the Kerala Central Excise and Customs Group D officers Association, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, claiming that on completion of 24 years of service, Group D employees of Central Excise and Customs Department are entitled to a Second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit. At that point of time, Group D comprised of Sepoy and Havildars. Havildars were eligible for being considered for promotion to the category of Lower Division Clerks, which is in Group C. Their eligibility for being considered for such promotion was matriculation and the promotion was on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.

(2.) The case put forward before the Tribunal was that even those Havildars, who did not possess the qualification of matriculation, were entitled to a second ACP benefit. It is the conceded position that they were ineligible for upward movement from Group D to Group C, since they did not possess the qualification of matriculation.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the issue mooted was whether the non-matriculate Sepoy would be entitled to a further ACP benefit to the scale of Lower Division Clerks, then perched at Rs. 3,050-4590. Taking into consideration paragraph No. 6 of the conditions for grant of benefit under ACP Scheme, annexed to OM dated 08/09/1999, the Tribunal drew an inference that in the case of Group D employees, the condition precedent for grant of financial upgradation is only seniority-cum-fitness and the possession of educational qualification of matriculation prescribed for appointment as Lower Division Clerk does not appear to be a pre-condition. The Tribunal went further to take the view that it is not easy for a Group D employee to acquire the educational qualification prescribed and therefore, a Sepoy does not have adequate promotional avenues. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that Sepoy are entitled to a second ACP benefit, even if they do not possess the qualification of matriculation. This decision is under challenge before us, at the instance of the Department.