UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURAJBHAN SWARNKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur bench, Jaipur, dated 08.09.2017 in O.A. No.69/2017, whereby the Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the applicant-respondent and set-aside the communication dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure-A/1), order dated 02.06.2015 (Annexure-A/2) and order dated 09/10.06.2015 (Annexure-A/3), which were annexed to the Original Application.

(2.) The respondent was initially appointed with the petitioner Department on ad hoc basis on 30.12.1978 through Employment Exchange. On his qualifying the SSC examination, his services were regularised with effect from 18.12.1983. Thereafter he was offered regular promotion on 16.11.1998. However, owing to his personal circumstances, he forwent the same and, therefore, he was debarred for promotion for a period of one year, i.e., from 01.12.1998 to 30.11.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner Department vide office memorandum dated 09.08.1999 introduced Advance Career Progression Scheme (ACP scheme) to provide reliefs to the government employee stagnating for a very long time, by which an employee is entitled to two financial up-gradations on completion of 12 and 24 years of service respectively. The petitioner Department granted to the petitioner the benefit of first financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 09.08.1999 vide office order dated 25.11.1999 as he had already completed 15 years of service by then, however, the petitioner Department before few days of the superannuation of the respondent, which was due on 30.06.2015, withdrew the aforesaid benefit of first financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme vide order dated 02.06.2015. It is this order and two consequential orders, which were challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has set aside the same vide impugned order.

(3.) Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner Department, has referred to Clause 10 of the Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1999 to argue that according to the Clause "Grant of higher pay scale under the ACF scheme shall be conditional to the fact that an employee while accepting the said benefit shall be deemed to have given his unqualified acceptance for regular promotion on occurrence of vacancy. In case he refuses to accept the higher post on regular promotion subsequently, he shall be subject to normal debarment for regular promotion as prescribed in the general instructions in this regard." According to the learned counsel, this would mean that after the debarment period of the respondent was over on 30.11.1999, the respondent ought to have waited for another opportunity for regular promotion and if such promotion was not offered to him within 12 years counting from that date then only he would be entitled to the financial up-gradation on completion of 12 years of service.