Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sobhana Varma M vs M/O Communication & I T on 18 July, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/0060/2016
Friday, this the 18th day of July, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sobhana Varma M., Senior Engineer, Centre for Development of
Advanced Computing, Vellayambalam, Thiruvanthapuram - 695 033,
Residing at Thiruvonam, T.C. 9/1996/1, Kochar Road, Sasthamangalam,
Thiruvananthapuram 695 010.
- Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil]
Versus
1. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, Represented by its
Secretary, Vellayambalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 036.
2. The Executive Director, Centre for Development of Advanced
Computing, Vellayambalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033
3. The Director General, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing,
Agriculture College Campus, Near District Industries Centre, Shivaji
Nagar, Pune - 411 005.
4. Union of India represented by its Secretary, Department of Electronics
and Information Technology (DeitY), Ministry of Communications &
Information Technology (MCIT) Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. N. Anilkumar, SPC]
The application having been heard on 03.07.2025, the Tribunal on
18.07.2025 delivered the following order:
2025.07.18 15:57:43
DEEPA S
+05'30'
O.A.No.60/2016 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Senior Engineer retired from the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, C-DAC for short, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. She had commenced service as a Scientific Assistant in the said organisation in April 1979. She was promoted as Technical Officer in October 1995 and then became Senior Technical Officer on 01.01.2002. As Senior Technical Officer she was drawing salary in the pay scale Rs.10000-325-15200, revised pay of which is Rs.15000-600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.6,600/-. She started career as a graduate in Chemistry. A graduate cannot aspire to become a Group A post. Senior Technical Officer is a Group-B post. Later, at the age of 50, she acquired MCA degree in first class. At that time she opted for a channel change. Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents, she underwent a review process to change the category to that of Group-A and thus became Scientist-C on 13.09.2007 which also carried the same scale, that is Rs.15000-600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.6,600/-.
2. The promotion in Group A cadre is controlled by Flexible 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 3 Complementing Scheme, FCS. Under the FCS, each employee will have to complete a Marginal Residency Period, MRP, for 4 years/5years as the case may be. A Scientist C presently known as Senior Engineer, could aspire to become a Scientist D only after completing MRP for 4 years. The applicant had acquired the qualification of MCA with the intention of getting career progression and to go up in higher scales. But to her utter dismay, even after the residency period she was not granted promotion as Scientist D. The representation made by her was initially replied stating that, after the residency period, she will be considered for appointment as Scientist D with effect from 01.01.2012, that is after completion of 4 years from the date of commencement of service as Scientist C. According to the applicant, meanwhile, the respondents introduced a new scheme with effect from 01.07.2020 for removing the stagnation in the cadre, granting in situ promotion as Principal Technical Officer as a one time promotion policy, whereunder a person below Group A could acquire the scale of 12000-375-16500, revised as Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.7,600/-. According to the applicant, those who had competed with her for getting the Group A 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 4 post and failed and those who were her juniors and such of the persons were given a higher scale at the rate of Rs.12000-375-16500. Thus they could cross the scale of pay drawn by her. She had highlighted this anomaly also before the respondents and then the respondents launched a scheme for rolling back from the Group A post. She also opted for the roll back. But she remained stagnated in 15000-600- 39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- whereas those who were appointed as Principal Technical Officer under the one time promotion policy started drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/-. She was not granted any promotion under the FCS Scheme, since that scheme stood frozen from 2011 onwards. The applicant had made her option and wanted to go back, so that she could get the higher scale of Rs. 12000-375-16500 with grade pay of Rs. 7,600/-. But that option was also not considered. Meanwhile, the applicant retired from service on 30.06.2015 drawing the very same scale, for more than 13 years without any promotion whereas others who were not fortunate enough in getting selection as Scientist C were getting higher scale of pay. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant, even after retirement, filed representation which was rejected 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 5 by Annexure- A12 which is one of the documents impugned in this O.A.
3. Later Annexure A-14 personal policy for Group A employees was introduced on 19.09.2016. It was held specifically that the operation of that policy would be effective from 01.11.2011. Thus the applicant was denied the benefit of the same as well. She made representation, but that also has been rejected on the basis of the Annexure-A15/R1(e) clarification that those who have already retired from service during the period from 2011 to 2016 will not have the benefit of Annexure A-14. Thus Annexure A-12 and A-15 are impugned in this Original Application.
4. The applicant has prayed for calling for the records leading to Annexure A-12 and Annexure A-15 and to quash the same, to direct the respondents to consider granting promotion to the applicant as Scientist D with effect from the eligible date under the FCS or in the alternative, to direct the respondents to consider roll back to below Group A category and to grant placement as Principal Technical Officer in the scale of 12000-375-16500 in PB3 with grade pay of Rs.7,600 with effect from the date her juniors in the category of Senior Technical Officer was granted the above benefit and any other relief deemed fit by this 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 6 Tribunal.
5. Thus, according to the applicant, even though she was placed in a Group A post with effect from 13.09.2007, she was not granted the benefit of the FCS. No promotion was granted since the implementation of the FCS stood frozen for the period from 2011. Though the respondents had promised that she would be placed in the scale of Scientist D with effect from 01.01.2012, that was not materialised. Thus she was denied the benefit of FCS. Since her juniors and those who had competed with her to get selected as Group A cadre were granted the post of Principal Technical Officer by virtue of the one time promotion policy of 01.10.2010, many of them started drawing higher scale than her. It is also submitted that the applicant, for the mere reason that she had acquired a higher qualification and became meritorious, it has become a punishment for her. That is illegal. Even though she was offered an opportunity to roll back to the post below Group A, that was also not granted and thus she has suffered all time losses. It is also pointed out that one Smt.Elizabeth T John, who was working as Senior Technical Officer, was promoted to Scientist D in 2007 itself. But the 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 7 applicant has been discriminated against.
6. Thus the applicant says that all the steps taken by the respondents are arbitrary, irrational, iniquitous and she has been made to suffer for the additional qualification acquired by her and for choosing a channel change and shifting to a Group A post.
7. Referring to Annexure-A15 it is submitted that there is no justification in denying the retrospective operation of Annexure-A14 from 01.01.2011. Annexure-A14 decision was taken on the basis of elaborate discussions and as approved by the appointment committee of the Cabinet, whereas Annexure A-15 has not gone through the procedures and it was illegal on the part of the respondents to dilute the mandate in Annexure-A14.
8. The respondents have disputed the contentions of the applicant. They have challenged the very maintainability of the O.A. According to the respondents, the O.A. is not legitimate. The applicant had joined ER&DC, Keltron as Scientific Assistant Trainee on 04.04.1979 and was appointed as Scientific Assistant B on 04.04.1980. She was inducted to the rolls of ER&DC after the takeover of ER&DC by the 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 8 Department of Electronics, Government of India in 1988 as Executive Technical-I and later to C-DAC. She superannuated from the service of the C-DAC on 30.06.2015 on attaining the age of 60.
9. According to the respondents, during 2007, the applicant was allowed a channel change from below Group A (S&T) to Group A (S&T). The promotion to scales equivalent to Group A positions does not actually make an employee Group A, as these promotions are in situ and not vacancy based. The applicant continued to occupy the post in the same grade in Group A after the channel change. She was promoted to Senior Technical Officer in below Group A (S&T) on 01.01.2002 in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 (Revised PB3 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6,600), which is equivalent to pay scale of Senior Engineer in Group A (S&T).
10. The respondents denied the contention that merely based on her acquisition of MCA degree she was placed in the post Scientist C. The below Group A employees were allowed in situ promotions up to the scale of Rs.12000-375-16500, while Group A (S&T) employees were eligible to be considered for in situ promotion up to PB-4 with Grade Pay 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 9 Rs.10000 under FCS, a promotion scheme applicable to Group A scientific and technical employees. Therefore, the differentiation between Group A and below Group A employees is very clearly drawn touching qualifications and the maximum level up to which they are eligible to be considered for in situ promotion. According to the respondents, the applicant was posted in Group A (S&T) afresh in the scale of Rs.10000-15200 with revised pay scale with grade pay of Rs.6,600/- on 13.09.2007. She will get promotions only as per the FCS, that after the channel change she would be controlled by the FCS. After 2011, promotions under FCS scheme were held in abeyance in the entire C-DAC, for want of revised promotion policy. No promotions were carried out in C-DAC for Group A (S&T) employees after 2011. The applicant has no case that any one in Group A was promoted after 2011.
11. According to the respondents, it was the choice of the applicant to come over to Group-A, on her own, after knowing all the implications mentioned in Annexure-R1(a). She was choosing category change aiming much more benefits than the employees below Group-A. There is no comparison between promotional scopes of Group-A and 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 10 below Group-A employees. The promotion of the entire C-DAC Group-A officers was held in abeyance for want of revised promotion policy. They claim that earlier, there was a proposal for allowing such Group-A employees to roll back. The proposal was submitted before the Director General, but the Director General has not taken any decision on the same. The respondents have disputed the claim that the applicant has remained stagnated from 2002. It may be true that she had come to the scale in 2002. At that time, she was in below Group-A scale as Senior Technical Officer. But, from 2007, she was in Group A(S&T) category as Scientist-C. Even though the pay scale is the same as per the 6 th CPC, both are different categories with different promotion policies and recruitment rules.
12. The respondents have also maintained that the posting as Scientist-C was not a promotion but only a channel change pursuant to a notification issued by the respondents, taking into account the qualifications acquired by the applicant. According to them, the respondents have sufficiently clarified that she was not denied promotion nor she was being singled out, but promotions of all 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 11 employees in C-DAC in Group A were held in abeyance for want of revised promotion policies since 2011 and it is not an isolated case.
13. Regarding the case of Smt.Elizabeth T John the respondents have submitted that, that has nothing to do with the service of the applicant. The staff members had represented against an anomaly on mapping of pay scales of Keltron to DOE pay scales subsequent to the take over of ER&DC by DOE. It is a separate case and not connected with channel change on acquiring additional qualification. The copy of details regarding promotion of Smt.Elizabeth T John also have been produced as Annexure-R1(d).
14. On these considerations it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.
15. We heard Sri. Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. N. Anilkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, elaborately.
16. According to Sri. Vishnu, though the applicant had remained in the same scale for more than 13 years, she was not granted any upgradation in the scale. Even though she had opted for channel change 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 12 and came over as a Group A officer, that provided no advances in her career. She remained in the same scale as that of Senior Technical Officer and later retired as such, without any upgradation in the scale. Meanwhile, the respondents realised the plight of the applicant and similarly placed employees and made a proposal for rolling back to the below Group A post, that was a god sent opportunity to her. The applicant had readily accepted the same and was under the pious wish that she would be able to go back and obtain the benefit of the one time scheme that of Principal Technical Officer in the scale of 12,000-16500 and grade pay of Rs. 7,600/-. That also was not considered by the respondents and ultimately Annexure-A14 was issued introducing the new policy of FCS whereunder a Group A officer could aspire for promotion, after the residency period of 4 years. She had remained in Group A for nearly 8 years, but did not get any promotion and thereafter Annexure-A15 clarification was issued restricting or denying the benefit to the applicant and similarly placed employees which is bad, illegal and unconstitutional. If the retrospective promotion is found not possible, she is entitled to roll back to below Group A and get the benefits of the 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 13 one time promotion policy whereunder she could get the scale of Rs.12000-375-16500, in revised pay of 15000-600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.7,600. All her career prospects were doomed by the respondents.
17. Learned counsel pointed that Annexure-A14 was issued after due deliberation with the approval of the cabinet committee for appointment. But, later, restricting the benefits to a few employees and excluding applicant and others who were entitled to get benefit between 2011 and 2016 is also illegal and unconstitutional. Annexure- A15 was not issued after due deliberation and therefore both Annexures- A12 and A15 are bad and liable to be interfered with.
18. Referring to Annexure-R1(a) the learned counsel raised an interesting contention that, in fact the applicant should not have considered for channel change in 2007 since she had acquired MCA only in 2006, only a person with minimum three years post qualification experience was qualified for channel change. We may hasten to add that, at this distance of time, after availing the benefit of channel change, the applicant is estopped from taking such an argument.
19. On the other hand, according to Sri.Anilkumar, during 2011 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 14 onwards implementation of FCS remained frozen. It was a decision of the respondents affecting very many officers in Group A and there is nothing to say that any particular discrimination was shown against the applicant. Of course, she might not have got promotion in Group-A, but that was owing to the policy prevailing in the organisation at that time. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-A15 is not against Annexure- A14. It is a mere clarification. Everything was the result of the policy decision taken by the respondents, which cannot be called in question. There was also no decision permitting rolling back, which is evident from Annexure-R1(c).
20. Regarding retrospective promotion, the learned counsel pointed out that the prayer is against the decisions of the Apex Court. The applicant had retired from service on 30.06.2015. At this belated stage she cannot expect to be promoted retrospectively. The learned Standing Counsel also relied on the decision reported in Union of India and others v. K.K.Vadera and others [AIR 1990 SC 442] and the decision of the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.7968/2012 dated 11.11.2013 [P.P.Verma v. Chief Secretary and others]. The learned Standing Counsel 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 15 pressed for dismissing the O.A.
21. The official profile of the applicant is not in dispute. She had become a Scientific Assistant in the respondent organisation or its predecessor in April 1979. At that time, she was holding a B.Sc degree in Chemistry. She was promoted as Technical Officer in October 1995 and then as Senior Technical Officer on 01.01.2002. It is a Group B post. A Group B employee holding a degree could not have aspired to go up in the ladder of promotion and could not have been, ordinarily, promoted as a Group A employee, unless possesses necessary general educational qualifications and experience. While working as Senior Technical Officer, she was drawing at the revised pay of Rs.15000-600-39100 with Grade Pay of 6,600/-. The scheme of the respondents provided that a person who is acquiring Post Graduate Degree with first class can be considered for promotion to Group A post. By the time, in 2006 she had acquired MCA degree with first class. Thus, pursuant a notification issued by the respondents she submitted her application. Thus a channel change was permitted and she became Scientist-C on 13.09.2007, in Group A. It is also the common case that the promotion of Group A employees are 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 16 guided by FCS. After completing a minimum residency period of 4 years, a Scientist C could become Scientist D, Scientist E,F etc. up to the scale with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- after covering the prescribed residency period. On 09.07.2010 the applicant gave the Annexure-A3 representation requesting to consider her for promotion, to which Annexure-A4 reply was given on 30.11.2010 stating that after completion of the residency period, she would be due for promotion on 01.01.2012 only. Getting assured that she will get a promotion on 01.01.2012 to Scientist-D she remained dormant for sometime. Even thereafter, when her promotion was not considered, after representations made, she filed O.A.512/2015 before this Tribunal and on 02.07.2015 Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation within two months and that was how Annexure-A12 was issued rejecting her plea for promotion.
22. The specific case of the respondents that even though FCS was the mode of promotion for a Group A officers, from 2011 onwards the scheme was kept frozen, pending revision of the promotion policy. That stalemate continued for a long period and the new policy had come 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 17 into effect through Annexure-A14 on 19.09.2016. By the time applicant had retired from service. It is to be stated that Annexure-A14 proposed to take effect from 01.11.2011. Then representations were made seeking retrospective promotion from that date. However, through Annexure-A15 that has also been rejected stating that retrospective promotion from 2011 to 2016 is not possible.
23. This is a typical case in which an enterprising lady officer acquiring higher qualification of MCA with first class at the age of 50 and then chose channel change to become Group A officer. As stated earlier, at that time, a Graduate employee who was holding below Group A post could aspire to secure only upto the scale of Rs.15000-600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/-. The applicant was already drawing at that scale. So, it is the admitted case that, after acquiring MCA she had opted a channel change with the legitimate expectation of going up higher in the ladder of promotion and career progression. But, that did not happen despite she had made numerous representations. Annexure-A4 indicates that she was told that she will get promotion from 01.01.2012 onwards, but that did not happen and the revised policy was introduced 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 18 only on 19.09.2016, by the time the applicant had retired from service.
24. This is an instance in which the applicant had suffered numerous set backs in her career. She is an enterprising and industrious employee and that spirit drove her to acquire MCA degree and choose a channel change and move over to Group A despite there was no immediate financial benefit to her. It has come out that she continued in the same pay scale of Rs.15000-600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6,600 for more than 13 years, starting from 01.01.2002, when she was posted as Senior Technical Officer. For her, that was not a promotion. The respondents have also stated that it was not a promotion, but only a channel change. Whatever it may be, what was applicable for a Scientist-C was the FCS. So, ordinarily, when changed over to a Group A post she was entitled to get the benefits of the FCS. But that scheme was put on hold indefinitely and the new promotion policy had come into effect only on 19.09.2016, long after the retirement of the applicant on superannuation.
25. Meanwhile, may be to address the grievances of stagnation of employees below Group A, the respondents had introduced a one-
2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 19 time promotion policy on 01.10.2010, whereunder a senior Technical Officer could go up as Principal Technical Officer in the scale of Rs.12000- 375-16500 with Grade Pay of 7,600/-. The case of the applicant is that, many below Group A employees who had attended the selection process with her and failed and her juniors were promoted as Principal Technical Officers stealing a march over her. At the same time, the applicant remained in the same scale with effect from 01.01.2002. This contention is not disputed by the respondents. In other words, those who are juniors to her or who were less qualified or who had contested the Group A post along with the applicant and failed, started earning higher pay than what the applicant was paid. No doubt, such a situation is alarming and demoralising. Thereafter, the respondents wanted to extend the benefit of roll back to some such dejected employees; though the applicant had also given option to go back, that also was not materialised and she continued to suffer in the same scale all along.
26. During the pendency of the O.A., Annexure-A14 policy was introduced with effect from 19.09.2016, which is the FCS applicable for Group-A employees in the respondent organisation. Ordinarily, persons 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 20 like the applicant are entitled to get the benefit of the same. It is also specifically stated that Annexure-A14 is effective from 01.11.2011. But, later, through Annexure-A15 it has been clarified that retrospective effect cannot be given for those who have already retired from service during 2011-2016. That also gave a severe blow to the applicant and thus she continued in the same scale without any promotion for more than 13 years.
27. That means, everything had turned detriment to the applicant. It was a misadventure on the part of the applicant to choose to move over to the Group-A cadre on acquiring higher qualification. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the acquisition of higher qualification had turned detriment to her and turned out as a punishment. She had to pay heavy price for taking a decision for channel change which ultimately proved disastrous and spoiled her ambitions. On the other hand, she could notice her juniors, who are less qualified getting higher pay as Principal Technical Officer. To put it in other words, the applicant was not given the benefit of the FCS since it remained frozen for long time, she was also found not entitled to 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 21 get the benefit of the new promotion policy. By the time she had retired from service and the effect of retrospective operation was denied to her. Thus, from every angle the policies of the respondents have turned hostile to her. The applicant had approached this Tribunal in such a precarious circumstance.
28. As we already pointed out, the applicant has retired from service on 30.06.2015 without getting any of the benefits, either the benefit of the channel change, or rolling back or the modified FCS introduced in the C-DAC. But we are of the definite view that since it involves retrospective promotion, no positive directions can be issued by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in K.K.Vadera, quoted supra, has specifically held that 'promotion to a post could be only from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant'. According to the Apex Court, 'promotion can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If, on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 22 promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion.'
29. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in recent decisions also. (See the decisions in Bihar State Electricity Board and others v. Dharamdeo Das [AIR 2024 SC 4609], Government of West Bengal and others v. Dr.Amal Satpathi and others [2024 KLT online 2834] etc.) Here, Annexure-A14 postulates a process to be followed for assessing the suitability of candidates to be considered for promotion to higher posts. Such a process has not been taken place nor the applicant had undergone the process of selection. In the circumstances, a direction to grant her retrospective promotion cannot be considered.
30. Though Annexure-A14 spoke about granting promotion with retrospective effect from 01.01.2011, later it was clarified through Annexure-A15 that those who have retired from service during 2011- 2016 cannot be given retrospective promotion. The reason is very obvious. As noticed earlier, such a promotion is pre-conditioned by assessment of suitability made by the Assessment Board. Since such a 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 23 screening and assessment have not taken place, the correctness of Annexure-A15 also cannot be questioned by the applicant. On these considerations, both the prayers for quashing Annexures-A12 and A15 and for directing to grant retrospective promotion cannot be allowed.
31. Now, turning to the alternative relief for permitting her to roll back to category below Group-A, also cannot be considered at this stage. It is certain that when the applicant had changed the channel, the post held by her as Senior Technical Officer had fallen vacant and in all probability, by lapse of time, substitutes must have been posted. Though the posting as Principal Technical Officer is an in situ promotion, once the applicant had ceased holding the post, the prayer for alternative relief also cannot be granted. That precisely may be the reason why the Director General did not take any decision for allowing the applicant and others to roll back. Therefore, the prayer for rolling back also cannot be considered.
32. In short, none of the reliefs claimed by the applicant can be allowed. But, we are of the definite view that the applicant cannot be left dejected. It is the common case that the applicant had become a 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 24 Senior Technical Officer on 01.01.2002 in the scale of Rs.15000-600- 39100 with grade pay of Rs.6,600. She retired in that scale on 30.06.2015 without any financial upgradation. She had continued in the scale for more than 13 years. That is something hard and required to be corrected at the instance of the respondents. Now, for more than one reason, we are of the definite opinion that the applicant can be considered for granting an upgradation under the MACP scheme.
33. Firstly, we take judicial notice of the fact that the Office Memorandum No.35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19th May 2009 whereunder the MACP scheme was introduced by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department postulates that 'the scheme will be available to all posts belonging to Group A whether isolated or not. However, organized Group A services will not be covered under the Scheme'. The respondents have no case that the applicant belonged to an organized Group A post. Therefore, other things remaining the same, there is no legal impediment in granting her the benefit under the MACP scheme.
34. Secondly, though the applicant had stated that she was 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 25 promoted from below Group A to Group A post and became Scientist C, the definite case of the respondents is that it is not a promotion, but only a channel change. That means, by way of such channel change from below Group A post to Group A, she has not forfeited her right to get the benefit of the MACP.
35. Thirdly, clause 5(xiii) of the Annexure A14 states as follows:
"The assessment of S&T officers for promotion to the next grade would only be three times and thereafter the Scientist would be covered under MACP scheme notified by DoPT according to the provisions of that scheme. The Scientist who has been granted any grade under MACP can be considered for next grade under this policy according to the eligibility and other provisions of the policy............."
36. No doubt, she was not assessed for grant of next grade under the FCS. She had also completed more than 13 years drawing the very same scale of pay without any financial upgradation. Therefore, the Annexure-A14 also supports the proposal for granting benefit under the MACP scheme.
37. As mentioned earlier, after commencement of service as Scientific Assistant, she had acquired only two promotions, one as 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 26 Technical Officer and then as Senior Technical Officer and continued to remain stagnated in the same scale for more than 13 years. She had obtained only two financial upgradations in the entire career and therefore, this is eminently a fit case for grant of benefit under the MACP scheme.
38. Therefore, while rejecting the claims, we direct the respondents to consider grant of MACP benefits to the applicant on account of the admitted fact that she had remained stagnated in the same scale for a long period from 01.01.2002 till 30.06.2015, till her retirement. No doubt, such a grant will be in terms of the MACP scheme. The process shall be completed and orders will be passed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Original Application is disposed of as above, No costs.
(Dated, this the 18th July, 2025)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
2025.07.18 15:57:43
DEEPA S
+05'30'
O.A.No.60/2016 27
List of Annexures
Annexure-A1. True copy of communication No.PGA/PER/101/2007 dated 24th August, 2007 issued by Head (A&F), C-DAC. Annexure-A2. True copy of Office Order No.PGA/PER/201A/2007 dated 13th September 2007 issued by Head (A&F), C- DAC.
Annexure-A3: True copy of representation dated 9-7-2010 addressed to Executive Director, C-DAC.
Annexure-A4. True copy of Communication No.PGA/PER/DOPL-
GRIEVANCE/2010 dated 10th November, 2010 of Head (Personnel), C-DAC.
Annexure-A5: True copy of representation dated 27-10-2014 of the applicant to the Executive Director, C-DAC, Trivandrum. Annexure-A6. True copy of representation dated 9-12-2014 of the applicant to the Executive Director, C-DAC, Trivandrum. Annexure-A7. True copy of Communication No. HR&A/HR/2014 dated 12th December, 2014 by the C-DAC.
Annexure-A8. True copy of Communication dated 22nd January, 2015 by the HR Department under the 1st respondent. Annexure-A9: True copy of communication No.PER/002/2001 dated 31st December, 2001 issued by the Executive Director, C-DAC.
Annexure-A10. True copy of communication No.PGA/PER/201A/2010 dated 18th May 2010 by the Head Personnel, C-DAC. 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.60/2016 28 Annexure-A11: True copy of the judgment dated 2.7.2015 in O.A.No.180/00512/2015 of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Annexure-A12: True copy of the order No. CORP.DG.2244 dated 4.12.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure-A13: True copy of hearing note submitted by the applicant. Annexure A14: True copy of the O.M.No.2(11)/2016-Pers.III dated 19.09.2016 issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
Annexure-A15: True copy of the communication No.F.No.2(4)/2017-P.III dated 06.03.2018 issued by the 4th respondent. Annexure-R1(a): True copy of the internal notification No.PGA/PER/07 dated 09.07.2007 Annexure-R1(b): True copy of the letter dated 12.07.2007. Annexure-R1(c): True copy of the proposal submitted to the DG vide note dated 11.11.2014.
Annexure-R1(d): True copy of the details regarding the promotion of Smt Elizabeth, T John Annexure R1 (e) - True copy of Meity OM bearing file no.2 (4)/2017-P.III dated 06.03.2018 ************ 2025.07.18 15:57:43 DEEPA S +05'30'