UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAVARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in O.A. No. 728 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short 'the Tribunal'), filed this Writ Petition, assailing the order, dated 21.02.2012, passed therein. The respondents herein filed the O.A. claiming benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short 'the Scheme'), which is commonly known as "Financial Upgradation". The Scheme was introduced through Office Memorandum, dated 09.08.1999, by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi, based upon the 5th Central Pay Commission's report. The Scheme provides that if an employee of the Central Government does not get promotion from the initial appointment, which is by way of direct recruitment, for a period of 12 years, he shall be entitled for the 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP), resulting in payment of the scale of pay for the next higher post. Similarly, if there is stagnation for a further period of 12 years, the employee shall be entitled for the 2nd ACP.

(2.) The respondents were initially appointed in Group-D of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) in the year 1982. Thereafter, they were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs), on the basis of their performance in a competitive examination held for that purpose. They were not promoted to the next higher post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC), till the year 2000. Therefore, on completion of 12 years of service from the date of appointment as LDCs, they have been extended the benefit of the 1st ACP. They laid claim for the 2nd ACP, stating that they have completed 24 years of service from the date of appointment as LDCs.

(3.) The petitioners took the view that once the respondents have got the benefit of promotion in the year 2002, they are not entitled for the 2nd ACP, unless they have completed 24 years of service from the date of appointment as LDCs. Another view expressed by the petitioners was that the appointment of the respondents as LDCs in the year 1988 is by way of promotion, and since the benefit of one progression and one promotion has been extended to them, they are not entitled for further benefit. Feeling aggrieved by the communication received in this regard, the respondents filed the O.A.