UNION OF INDIA Vs. LILLY VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 906 of 2003 dated 12-2-2004 is under challenge. On the basis of Annexure A-1 envisaged for grant of benefits under the scheme for Assured Career Progression, the Central Government had formulated principles which would have been normally applicable, for conferment of benefits of grades to persons, taking notice of their regular service in cases, where promotions had not been received by them. In a normal case, if no promotion had been received by the person concerned, the higher grade has to be given if a screening committee cleared the case if twelve years' service was there. After putting in twenty four years service, normally there arose entitlement for the second higher grade.

(2.) When claims had been raised by the applicants, it was refused to be taken notice of on the stand that Women Searchers in the Commissionerate of Central Excise and Customs, could not have claimed promotion to the next category of Inspectors of Central Excise, for the reason that there was a bar in conferment of promotion to personnel who had attained the age of 45. The Tribunal, by order dated 12-2-2004 had directed grant of one higher grade to the first applicant, and had negatived the claims of the second applicant altogether. The Writ Petition is filed in the above context, the Government contending that the direction was unwarranted.

(3.) Of course Sri Gopalakrishnan Nair counsel for the first respondent submits that in the present case this bar could not have been there since such restrictions were there only in respect of the ministerial section of employees. However this issue need not be decided in these proceedings. The only question is as to whether in a circumstance of non entitlement for promotion as in the present case should it have had the effect of operating as ineligibility for the A.C.P. benefits.