RUBBER BOARD Vs. DR.THARIAN GEORGE K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rubber Board constituted under the Rubber Act , 1947 is in appeal, being aggrieved by a part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.30059 of 2015. The first respondent in this appeal is the writ petitioner. 2. We have heard the parties at length and with their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The first respondent joined the Rubber Board on 18.06.1985. On 26.04.1993, he was appointed to the post of Deputy Director (Economic Research) in the Rubber Board through direct recruitment. He completed 12 years of service as Deputy Director (Economic Research) on 27.04.2005 and thus became entitled to benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. Under the said scheme, he became entitled to the next higher pay scale. This was apparently sanctioned on 03.11.2005. Again, through the process of direct recruitment, the first respondent joined the post of Joint Director (Economic Research) in the Rubber Board on 13.07.2006. However there was no increment in his pay or grade pay. Rather, he was, as a Deputy Director, drawing or was given more than what he was entitled as Joint Director, and thus was given a sort of pay protection. He superannuated on completion of 60 years of age with effect from 31.05.2016. 4. What brought the first respondent to this Court was the dispute with regard to the quantification of benefits under the ACP Scheme. The appellant has alleged that there were some mis- calculations and as such, had issued a memo for recovery thereof. This is what was challenged. This is what is borne out from Exhibits P13 and P14 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent superannuated and apparently, he was denied MACP i.e. Modified Assured Career Progression benefits, which scheme had come into force in 2009. The scheme was framed by the Central Government, which is Exhibit P7. Accordingly, the writ petition was amended. Consequently, the first respondent urged this Court for a direction with regard to the eligibility of the benefits under the MACP. 5. The writ petition was contested by the respondent therein, the Rubber Board. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 02.02.2017. The learned single Judge disposed of the matter and the operative part can be found in paragraph (13) of the judgment, which is quoted hereunder: