UNION OF INDIA Vs. K.V.RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition has been filed by the Union of India and its officers challenging the order dated 5.1.2017 in O.A.No.180/00006/2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent/applicant for the benefit of the 3 rd financial up- gradation under the 'Modified Assured Career Progression' (MACP) Scheme (hereinafter referred to as MACP for short). The petitioners say that the respondent is not entitled to the 3rd financial up- gradation as he has not completed the requisite years of service for the same.

(2.) The respondent entered service as a Ferro Printer on 21.11.1968. However, from 31.12.1969, since he was declared surplus in the cadre of Ferro Printer, he continued in service as a Storeman. On 29.8.1980, the respondent was posted as a Lower Division Clerk. On the introduction of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP), the respondent was granted the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP at 12 and 24 years counting his service from 29.8.1980. The issue as to whether his service from 21.11.1968 is liable to be counted for ACP does not arise for our consideration and even if it did, such a claim would be hopelessly barred by delay, laches and limitation. With effect from 1.9.2008, on the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India introduced the MACP which provided for financial upgradations on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years in a particular grade. This was in the modification of the then existing ACP Scheme. The respondent retired from service on 30.6.2010. The only question arising for our consideration is whether, in the aforesaid fact situation, the respondent was entitled to the 3 rd financial up-gradation and if so from which date he would be so eligible.

(3.) Sri. T.V. Vinu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in granting to the respondent the benefit of the 3 rd financial up- gradation under the MACP Scheme. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, when the Tribunal itself found that the respondent could be treated as having joined service only on 29.8.1980, the Tribunal could not have proceeded to grant the benefit of 3 rd MACP on a finding that there was a shortage of only two months and on the premise that his service from 21.11.1968 to 31.12.1969 should anyway be reckoned for determining the length of service rendered by the respondent. He very vehemently contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts of the case properly and misconstrued the provisions of the MACP Scheme.