Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Shailendra Kumar vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00263 of 2014 Shailendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00263 of 2014
Dated, this 21st day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Shailendra Kumar, 54 years, son of Sri Chandra Prakash resident of
C-68, H.A.L. Colony, Faizabad Road, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Awasthi
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Defence
Production & Supplies, Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Aeronautical Quality Assurance, Ministry of
Defence, 'H' Block, New Delhi.
3. Regional Director, Aeronautical Quality Assurance, DGAQA,
Ministry of Defence, H.A.L., Lucknow.
4. Principal Controller of Defence Account, Central Command,
Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to grant of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP, hereafter) scheme, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"A. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 and order dated 07.11.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 so far it relates to effectiveness of grant of A.C.P. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to the applicant as contained in Annexure No. A-1 and A-2 respectively to this Original Application. B. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the letter/recommendation dated 07.02.2014 issued by the Senior Account Officer, office of respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure No. A-3 to this Original Application.Page 1 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00263 of 2014 Shailendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.
C. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to grant and pay benefits of A.C.P. to the applicant w.e.f. 24.05.2000 along with other consequential benefits. D. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may issue any such other order or direction which this Hon‟ble may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
E. Allow the claim petition with cost."
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was appointed to the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (SSA, hereafter) vide order dated 21.04.1988 and he joined the post on 24.05.1988. As a consequence of an arbitration award, some posts of SSA were upgraded to SSA (Higher Scale), or SSA(HS), vide order dated 14.08.1992 and the applicant was placed in the grade of SSA(HS) with effect from 31.03.1994. The Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme was implemented in Government of India vide office memorandum (OM, hereafter) dated 09.08.1999 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT, hereafter) providing for grant of two financial upgradations after 12 years and 24 years of service, respectively. The applicant represented to the respondents for grant of 1st financial upgradation under ACP (1st ACP, in short) with effect from 24.05.2000, i.e., on completion of 12 years of service, citing the case of another employee P Srinivas, but in vain. The applicant was promoted to the post of Junior Scientific Officer with effect from 18.09.2007. The respondents granted the benefit of ACP to the applicant with effect from 01.01.2006 vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2011. The applicant again represented for grant of ACP with effect from 24.05.2000 instead of 01.01.2006 which was sent by respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 3 and further to respondent no. 2, but it came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.11.2013. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
Page 2 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00263 of 2014 Shailendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. 3.1 The applicant has assailed the impugned orders on two grounds. His first ground is that the placement in the post of SSA(HS) was not considered a promotion as stated by the respondents themselves vide letter dated 21.09.1998; consequently, he is entitled for 1st ACP from 24.05.2000 which was recommended by the Senior Accounts Officer vide letter dated 22.07.2013, but later the grant of higher pay scale in 1994 was incorrectly considered as promotion vide the impugned letter dated 07.02.2014.
3.2 The second ground is that 1st ACP was granted to one P Srinivasan who is similarly situated, after 12 years of his service, but a similar dispensation has not been extended to the applicant on completion of his 12 years of service.
4.1 Per contra, the respondents state that though DoPT clarified that placement of SSAs in the higher scale of SSA(HS) does not involve promotion, it has been clarified by DoPT vide OM dated 18.07.2001 (point no. 35) that placement of incumbents in the upgraded post shall be treated as promotion/upgradation for the purpose of ACP. It is contended that in view of this clarification, the applicant was not entitled to financial upgradation on completion of 12 years of service in the year 2000 as he had already got one financial upgradation from SSA(LS) to SSA(HS) in 1994. It is further stated that the posts of SSA(LS) and SSA(HS), which were existing as separate grades, were merged with effect from 01.01.2006 pursuant to recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and as such SSAs became eligible for grant of financial upgradation under ACP from 01.01.2006, i.e., the date of merger, by ignoring their upgradation/promotion from SSA(LS) to SSA(HS); accordingly, the applicant was granted financial upgradation under ACP with effect from 01.01.2006. It is averred that the matter was also referred to Ministry of Defence whereupon it was Page 3 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00263 of 2014 Shailendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. advised vide note dated 17.06.2014 that such cases have to be dealt in light of DoPT's clarifications provided in their FAQs (frequently asked questions) that in case of merger of posts, financial upgradation under ACP scheme would be allowed in the revised pay structure with effect from 01.01.2006 even if the Government servant has put in more than 12 years of service as on 01.01.2006.
4.2 In regard to the applicant's second objection seeking parity with P Srinivasan, the respondents state that P Srinivasan was appointed as SSA on 02.04.1994; he completed 12 years of service on 02.04.2006 and was accordingly granted financial upgradation under ACP with effect from 02.04.2006 whereas the applicant has been granted the same benefit with effect from 01.01.2006.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 The issue before us is whether placement in higher scale of pay can be reckoned as financial upgradation while considering eligibility for grant of financial upgradation under the ACP scheme. In this context, point no. 35 of OM dated 18.07.2001 issued by DoPT titled „Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees - Clarifications regarding‟ relied upon by the respondents is quoted below:
"S. No. 35.
Point of Doubt: Whether placement/appointment in higher scales of pay based on the recommendations of the Pay Commissions or Committees set up to rationalise the cadres is to be reckoned as promotion/financial upgradation and offset against the two financial upgradations applicable under the ACP Scheme? Clarification: Where all the posts are placed in a higher scale of pay, with or without a change in the designation; without requirement of any new qualification for holding the post in the higher grade, not specified in the Recruitment Rules for the existing post, and without involving any change in responsibilities and duties, then placement of all the incumbents against such upgraded posts is not be treated as promotion/upgradation. Where, however, rationalisation/restructuring involves creation of a number of new hierarchical grades in the rationalised set up and Page 4 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00263 of 2014 Shailendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.
some of the incumbents in the pre-rationalised set up are placed in the hierarchy of the restructured set up in a grade higher than the normal corresponding level taking into consideration their length of service in existing pre-structured/pre-rationalised grade, then this will be taken as promotion/upgradation.
If the rationalised/restructured grades require possession of a specific nature of qualification and experience, not specified for the existing posts in pre-rationlised set up, and existing incumbents in pre-rationalised scales/pre-structured grades, who are in possession of the required qualification/ experience are placed directly in the rationalised upgraded post, such placement will also not be viewed as promotion/upgradation. However, if existing incumbents in the pre-rationalised grades who do not possess the said qualification/ experience are considered for placement in the corresponding rationalised grade only after completion of specified length of service in the existing grade, then such a placement will be taken as promotion/upgradation.
Where placement in a higher grade involves assumption of higher responsibilities and duties, then such upgradation will be viewed as promotion/upgradation.
Where only a part of the posts are placed in a higher scale and rest are retained in the existing grade, thereby involving redistribution of posts, then it involves creation of another grade in the hierarchy requiring framing of separate recruitment rules for the upgraded posts. Placement of existing incumbents to the extent of upgradations involved, in the upgraded post will also be treated as promotion/upgradation and offset against entitlements under the ACPS.
For any doubts in this regard, matter should be referred to the Department of Personnel and Training (Establishment „D‟ Section) giving all relevant details."
(emphasis supplied) It is noted that the above clarification does not distinguish among placement in higher scale or financial upgradation or promotion as far as their impact on eligibility under ACP scheme is concerned. 6.2 Admittedly, the post of SSA(HS) was created by the respondents following an arbitration award extended to DGAQA employees vide letter dated 14.08.1992 of Ministry of Defence whereby 43% of SSAs were placed in higher pay scale and re-designated as SSA(HS) and the remaining 53% were retained in the prevailing pay scale and re- designated as SSA(LS).
6.3 The applicant avers that SSA(LS) and SSA(HS) cannot be regarded as two different posts as SSA(HS) was not held to be a Page 5 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00263 of 2014 Shailendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. promotion post by the respondents themselves; therefore, DoPT's clarification vide point 35 of OM dated 18.07.2001 is not applicable in his case. However, it is noted that point 35 of DoPT's OM dated 18.07.2001 makes no distinction between placement in higher scale or financial upgradation or promotion as far as their impact on eligibility under ACP scheme is concerned. Further, it is observed that in the instant case only part of the existing posts of SSA were placed in higher scale of SSA(HS) and in terms of clarification at point 35, placement of existing incumbents in the upgraded post will also be treated as promotion/upgradation and offset against entitlement under the ACP scheme. It is noted that the point 35 of OM dated 18.07.2001 has is not under challenge. In view of this position, we are unable to agree with the applicant's contention that the DoPT's clarification does not apply in his case.
7. Coming to the other objection of the applicant for not being afforded parity with P Srinivasan, it is noted that the applicant was appointed in the year 1988 while P Srinivasan was appointed in 1994. The applicant was granted financial upgradation under ACP with effect from 01.01.2006, i.e., date of merger of the posts of SSA(LS) and SSA(HS), while P Srinivasan was granted financial upgradation under ACP with effect from 02.04.2006 on completing 12 years of service. Given this factual scenario, it cannot be said that the applicant's case is similar to P Srinvasan's. We find no merit in the applicant's claim to seek parity with P Srinivasan. We also fail to see how the applicant can be granted financial upgradation under ACP retrospectively, i.e., prior to 01.01.2006, when the merger of posts of SSA(LS) and SSA(HS) itself took place with effect from 01.01.2006.
8.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit.
Page 6 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00263 of 2014 Shailendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. 8.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
8.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2026.01.23
10:32:23 +05'30'
Page 7 of 7