Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Vijay Kumar Rajput (Plate Maker) vs Union Of India Through on 7 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3291/2010
MA-2510/2010
MA-2694/2010
New Delhi this the 7th day of April, 2011.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
1. Sh. Vijay Kumar Rajput (Plate Maker),
Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi-2.
2. Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma (Plate Maker),
Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi-2.
3. Sh. Mahender Kumar (Plate Maker),
Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi-2.
4. Sh. Radhey Shyam (Plate Maker),
Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi-2. . Applicants
(through Sh. K.K. Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
the Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
2. The Directorate of Printing
through Deputy Director (A-1),
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
3. The General Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-2. . Respondents
(through Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicants have assailed the order dated 03.09.2010 of the respondent No.3 by which their representation against the show cause notice dated 21.06.2010 was rejected and a direction was given to withdraw the benefit of 2nd financial up-gradation under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
2.1 The applicants joined the services of respondent department as Compositor Grade-II; consequent on introduction of ACP Scheme, they got 1st financial up-gradation to the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/- in the year 1999. For reasons of technological up-gradation, they were re-deployed during the years 2000-2002 as Plate Makers in the same pay scale. Applicants No.1 to 3 were granted 2nd financial up-gradation to the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/- on 08.07.2005; applicant No. 4 got it on 21.12.2007. Their grievance started with the order dated 21.05.2009 of the respondents denying them the benefit of 2nd financial up-gradation. They filed OA No. 1618/2009 whereby the impugned order was set aside and the respondents were directed to proceed as per law. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 21.06.2009 and a reply to the notice was also given by the applicants. Nevertheless, the respondents reiterated their stand and decided to deny them the benefit of 2nd financial up-gradation in the impugned order; hence this O.A.
3. The main ground on which the impugned order was passed is that the applicants on re-deployment are to be treated as direct recruit candidates as their pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- was higher than their substantive pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-in the rank of Compositor Grade-II. Since their re-deployment involved posting in a higher pay scale in substantive capacity they are to be treated as direct recruit appointees from the dates of their re-deployment as Plate Makers. They will be entitled to their promotions and 1st ACP up-gradations as per rules/the ACP Scheme. Grant of 2nd ACP financial up-gradation was an error which had to be rectified by passing the impugned order. The respondent authority also placed reliance on the clarification of the nodal Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) issued under Items 4,5 and 6 of their letter dated 10.02.2000.
4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the purpose of the ACP is to give relief to the employees who are stagnating long in their service careers. In the present case the applicants had got the 1st ACP financial up-gradation to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. On re-deployment they have been adjusted in the same pay scale. A proper interpretation of the clarification of DoP&T letter dated 10.02.2000 Circular will lead to a different conclusion than what was reached by the respondent authority.
5. He placed reliance on the order and judgment of this Tribunal dated 02.02.2001 in OA No. 16/2010 where the benefit of counting past services was allowed in favour of the applicants therein. It was held in that OA that the respondent authorities themselves had not treated all the members of the re-deployed new cadre of Key Board Operators (KBO) alike since the DoP&T itself permitted some of the members of the newly constituted cadre not as direct recruits but as coming on transfer with the benefit of the past service; on that ground, similar benefits claimed by the applicants therein were allowed.
6. Since the impugned order has been justified on the basis of the clarification of the DoP&T, it would be worthwhile to examine the clarification in greater detail:-
4.
5.
6. In a case where a person is appointed to a post on transfer (absorption) basis from another post, whether 12 years and 24 years of service for the purpose of ACPS will count from the initial appointment of otherwise.
Whether a Government servant, who is direct recruit in one grade and subsequently joins another post again as direct recruit, is eligible for first financial upgradation under ACPS after completion of 12 years of service counted from the first appointment or from the subsequent second appointment as direct recruit?
An employee appointed initially on deputation to a post gets absorbed subsequently, whether absorption may be termed as promotion or direct recruitment. What will be the case if an employee on deputation holds a post in the same pay scale as that of the post held by him in the present cadre? Also, what will be the situation if he was holding a post in the parent cadre carrying a lower pay-scale?
The benefits under ACPS are limited to higher pay scale and do no confer designation, duties and responsibilities of the higher post. Hence, the basic criterion to allow the higher pay scale under ACPS should be whether a person is working in the same-pay scale for the prescribed period of 12/24 years. Consequently, so long as a person is in the same pay scale during the period in question, it is immaterial whether he has been holding different posts in the same pay scale. As such, if a Government servant has been appointed to another post in the same pay scale either as a direct recruit or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer basis, it should not make any difference for the purpose of ACPS so long as he is in the same pay scale. In other words, past promotion as well as past regular service in the same pay scale, even if it was on different posts for which appointment was made by different methods like direct recruitment, absorption (transfer)/deputation, or at different places should be taken into account for computing the prescribed period of service for the purpose of ACPS. Also, in case of absorption (transfer)/deputation in the aforesaid situations, promotions earned in the previous/present organizations, together with the past regular service shall also count for the purpose of ACPS. However, if the appointment is made to higher pay scale either as on direct recruitment or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer basis), such appointment shall be treated as direct recruitment and past service/promotion shall not count for benefits under ACPS.
6.1 No doubt, it says that if an appointment is made to a higher pay scale it should be treated as a case of direct recruitment but at the same time it also explains the objective of the ACP Scheme in the following manner, It should not make any difference for the purpose of ACP so long as he is in the same pay scale.
7. In the present case the applicants had been re-deployed in the same pay scale. If their past service is permitted to be counted, the benefits received by them in the past service will have to be accordingly accounted for. In other words, the 1st financial up-gradation received by them in the past service will be taken into account. Under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the employees are entitled to three promotions/financial up-gradations in their entire career. If the past services of the applicants are allowed, they would be entitled to two more benefits in the rest of their career.
8. From the over all prospective of the ACP Scheme, we do not find any justification to cancel the 2nd financial up-gradation granted to the applicants only on the technical ground that their substantive pay scale is higher although it was the same which they were getting earlier. It is not a case where the grant of the benefit earlier was directly in conflict with the provisions of the original Scheme. The clarification itself also says, it is immaterial if an employee is holding different posts so long they are in the same pay scale. Besides, it is not a case of transfer from other department, or first appointment. It is re-deployment in the same department in the same pay scale. In these circumstances, we feel that denying the applicants the benefit of their past services is not justified.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not in a position to sustain the impugned order, which is accordingly set aside. It is abundantly made clear that while the applicants will get the benefit of past service and get the 2nd financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme, they can get only one remaining up-gradation under MACP Scheme in future, if eligible.
10. In the result, the O.A. is allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J) /vv/