CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the writ petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,dated 3.11.1997 in O.A.No.580 of 1995.

(2.) The second respondent herein was originally employed as lower division clerk in the office of the Station Workshop, EME, Willington with effect from 15..2.1963. As he became surplus in that unit, he was adjusted in the MES on transfer from EME with effect from 19.1.1977. By virtue of the said transfer, he lost his erstwhile seniority though he was continued in the same pay scale . It is common ground that the second respondent reached the maximum in the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk and got stagnated in that scale from 1.1.1990. The scheme for career advancement of Grade 'C' and Grade 'D' employees, was announced by the proceedings dated 13.9.1991. Under the said scheme, while considering the claim made on behalf of the employees for revival of selection grades in the Grade 'C' and Grade 'D' cadres, it was announced that in respect of such of those Grade 'C' and Grade 'D' employees, who satisfy certain conditions and who were not promoted on regular basis after getting stagnated in their respective scales for a period of one year,were to be granted 'in situ promotion' and thereby, they would be eligible to draw the next higher scale available for the promotion post, until they really get promoted to that post as and when the vacancies arise. The conditions so imposed under the scheme as per the proceedings dated 13.9.1991 are as under: This scheme shall be applicable to

(3.) In the case of the second respondent, it was not in dispute that he satisfied all the conditions. However, when he was not granted the benefit, he made a representation before the concerned authorities at that point of time. At the instance of the petitioner, when clarification was sought for on various aspects of the scheme including the issue as to the eligibility for 'in situ' promotion in respect of persons who were initially appointed to the post on direct recruitment basis in a different unit, but subsequently, transferred to some other unit carrying the same scale of pay, the clarification came to be issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India on 16.7.1992. In the clarification letter dated 16.7.92 it is stated to the effect that such persons are not eligible for 'in situ promotion' in terms of para 2 (a) of the Official Memorandum dated 13.9.1991. It is to be noted that subsequently, the second respondent came to be promoted on a regular basis in the year 1995.It was in those circumstances, the second respondent approached the Tribunal by the present O.A.No.580 of 1985, challenging the denial of the benefit granted under the Official Memorandum dated 13.9.1991.