AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The respondents in O.A. No. 421 of 2004 are the petitioners. The applicant in that Original Application is the respondent.
The brief facts of the case are the following. The respondent/applicant joined service under the writ petitioners as Technician on 8.3.1973. With effect from 1.1.1996, recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission were implemented. Prior to that, the scale of pay of Technician (General) was Rs. 1,400 - 2,300/- The Pay Commission recommended two replacement scales for the said pre-revised scale of pay. It was suggested that 30% of the incumbents in the post of Technician (General) will be granted the replacement scale of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/- and the remaining 70% shall be given the scale of pay of Rs. 4,500 - 7,000/- The applicant, being a senior hand, was included in the 30% eligible for the higher scale of pay of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/- His pay was fixed as per Rule 7 of the Central Pay Revision Rules, 1997. Later, the Government introduced ACP scheme with effect from 9.8.1999, providing that an employee, who did not get any promotion for 12 years, will be granted a higher grade. An employee, who completed 24 years without any promotion will be granted the second higher grade also. Since the applicant did not get any promotion during his career, he claimed both the upgradation from 1999, as he has completed 24 years of service in 1997 itself. But the competent authority took the stand that the placement of the petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 should be taken as a promotion and therefore, he is entitled to get the second upgradation only. The said dispute led to the filing of the aforementioned Original Petition.
The respondent/applicant contended that his placement in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/- cannot be treated as a promotion. It was a placement in a replacement scale ordered by the Pay Commission. His pay was not fixed as provided in FR No. 22 (1)(a)(1), as it was not a promotion. He also pointed out that, as mentioned earlier, the pay was fixed only under Rule 7 of the Central Pay Revision Rules, 1997.
The writ petitioners resisted the application contending that the respondent got one promotion on 1.1.1996 and therefore, he is entitled to get only the second upgradation available on completion of 24 years. They have granted the same to the respondent during the pendency of the Original Petition.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions, upheld the point canvassed by the applicant and allowed the Original Application. The writ petitioners, aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6, have filed this writ petition.
The very same point canvassed unsuccessfully before the Tribunal has been canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners. But, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. If the placement of the respondent in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000/- with effect from 1.1.1997 was a promotion, his pay would have been fixed under FR 22 (1)(a)(1). But the same was fixed under Rule 7 of the Pay Revision Rules. The same would show that his placement in the above scale was only a grant of replacement scale and not a promotion. If that be so, the applicant is entitled to get two upgradations. That has been rightly granted by the Tribunal.
There is a dispute regarding the promotion post available to the applicant, at the time of introduction of ACP scheme on 9.8.1999. We order that the competent authority shall give him two upgradations as held above, for which he is eligible, in the scale of pay of promotion posts under the Recruitment Rules in force on 9.8.1999. In other words, it shall be ascertained what is the first promotion post of Technician (General) and what would be the next promotion from the first promoted post. His claim for the first and second upgradation shall be considered and allowed with effect from 9.8.1999, in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.