UNION OF INDIA Vs. MILAP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India has challenged order dated 11.12.2007 (P- 3), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), setting aside order dated 15.9.2005 (A-1) to the extent that the name of the applicant-respondent No. 1 has not been included for grant of benefit of special grade, which has been given to persons junior to him. The Tribunal has also issued directions to consider the case of the applicant-respondent No. 1 for grant of special grade of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from the date persons junior have been granted and pay to the applicant-respondent No. 1 all consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-respondent No. 1 was appointed as driver in the office of the petitioners. On the basis of his seniority, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 with effect from 1.8.1993 when three grade structure was introduced by the Department of Personnel and Training in the ratio of 55:25:20. On 25.9.1995, orders were passed after working out the cadre strength of drivers in the office of the Registrar General of India, where the applicant-respondent No. 1 was working (A-6). A new Assured Career Progression Scheme (for brevity,' ACP') came into force on 9.8.1999 on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission to remove stagnation in respect of those employees who could not get regular promotion (A-8). The applicant-respondent No. 1 was already granted one promotion by giving him the pay scale of Driver Grade-I under the three grade structure on 1.8.1993. He was granted benefit of second ACP on completion of 24 years of service as on 9.8.1999, vide order dated 13.12.1999 (A-9).

(3.) Another policy was introduced on 9.12.2003 and a category of Special Grade 'A' Car Driver was carved out in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 8.11.1996 (A-12). It is undisputed that 5% of the posts were placed in the said grade, which was to be released on the basis of non-selection and 'seniority-cum- fitness'. The applicant-respondent No. 1 was denied the benefit whereas the same benefit was given to his juniors. The applicant-respondent No. 1 accordingly brought this fact to the knowledge of the petitioners.