Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs F.C. Jain And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 602 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. The judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 27.09.2000 passed in O.A. No. 818 of 2000 allowing the original application filed by the respondent herein is in question in this writ petition filed by the Union of India.

2. The respondent herein was appointed as a 'Junior Engineer' on 10.10.1962. He was promoted as 'Assistant Engineer' on 18.09.1987 and now has been superannuated as 'Assistant Engineer' on 31.07.2000.

3. By reason of the said original application filed before the Tribunal, the respondent herein claimed a benefit of the decision of the Director of Works (S&D) of 13.05.1998 in terms whereof the Assistant Engineers to the extent of 50% of the strength were granted a higher pay scale of Rs. 7500/-- Rs. 12000/- as compared to the rest 50%. The respondent herein before the Tribunal had contended that he was at serial No. 884 of the seniority list and thus came within the purview of the 50% of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) and thus was entitled to the said benefit.

4. The contention of the respondent, however, on the other hand, was that the said benefit had been denied as he had already received a benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short, ACP Scheme') on 09.08.1999.

5. The learned Tribunal having regard to the aforementioned rival contentions inter alia held that the stand of the petitioners herein that the respondent is not entitled to both the Schemes is not justified.

6. Assailing the said finding, Mr. Ravi Kant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the scope and object of both the Schemes being different, the respondent was not entitled to double benefit.

7. The respondent herein, who has appeared in person, however, no the other hand, would submit that his claim was based on fitment of pay scale. It was contended that, whereas the ACP Scheme came into force in 1999, he has entitled to a higher pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

8. It is not in dispute that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the fitment of pay scale of Rs. 7,500/- Rs. 12,000/-. The said benefit had been granted to the respondent herein with effect from the date when the said Scheme came into force viz 09.08.1999.

9. The relevant provisions of the said ACP Scheme are as under:-

"10. Grant of higher pay-scale under the ACP 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 subsequently. 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. However, as and when he accepts regular promotion thereafter, he shall become eligible for the second upgradation under the ACP Scheme only after he completes the required eligibility service/ period under the ACP Scheme in that higher grade subject to the condition that the period for which he was debarred for regular promotion shall not count for the purpose. For example, if a persona has got one financial upgradation after rendering 12 years of regular service and after 2 years there from if he refuses regular promotion and is consequently debarred for one year and subsequently he is promoted to the higher grade on regular basis after completion of 15 years (12+2+1) of regular service, he shall be eligible for consideration for the second upgradation under the ACP Scheme only after the first financial upgradation (2+10) IN that higher grade, i.e., after 25 years (12+2+1+10) of regular service the debarment period of one year cannot be taken into account towards the required 12 years of regular service in that higher grade;

13. Existing time-bound promotion schemes, including in-situ promotion scheme, in various Ministries/Departments may, as per choice continue to be operational for the concerned categories of employees. However, these schemes, shall not run concurrently with the ACP Scheme. The Administrative Ministry/Department - not the employees - shall have the option in the matter to choose between the two schemes, i.e., existing time-bound promotion scheme of the ACP Scheme, for various categories of employees. However, in case of switch-over from the existing time-bound promotion scheme to the ACP Scheme, all stipulations (viz. for promotion, redistribution of posts, upgradation involving higher functional duties, etc.) made under the former (existing) scheme would cease to be operative. The ACP Scheme shall have to be adopted in its totality."

10. It is one thing to say that a person is entitled to a higher scale of pay having regard to the policy decision adopted by the State, but the same has nothing to do with the ACP Scheme, which stand on absolutely different footing.

11. By reason of fitment in the scale of pay, the respondent herein had not been promoted to a higher post or to a higher grade of pay.

12. Para 13 of the ACP Scheme, as referred to hereinbefore, mere excludes its operation only when there exists any time-bound promotion scheme including in-situ promotion scheme.

13. The scope and purport of both the Schemes are absolutely different whereas in terms of the former, the pay scale is revised, which is confined to 50% of the cadre strength; by reason of the ACP Scheme those who are stagnated in a particular post of a particular scale of pay is given higher scale of pay.

14. A beneficial scheme, it is trite, should be construed liberally. Unless and until it is found that by reason of the provisions of the ACP Scheme, the other rule would be inapplicable in a case where the benefit like the Scheme in question had been extended and made, the Respondent cannot be deprived thereof.

15. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot also be accepted in view of the fact that the respondent was entitled to the said fitment in the scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 whereas the ACP Scheme has come into being later on.

16. Furthermore, it is not a case where the respondent herein could have been asked to opt for one of those Schemes, as both the Schemes operate in two different fields.

17. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. This writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.