it2025_00539 — Applicants promoted as Senior Accountants in the normal course in the pay scale of ₹ 5,500-9,000 cannot compare themselves with directly recruited Senior Accountants placed in the scale of pay ₹ 6,500-10,500, if the pay of the Senior Accountants in the pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 is higher due to ACP (Assured Career Progression) Scheme

IT Rules

Applicants promoted as Senior Accountants in the normal course in the pay scale of ₹ 5,500-9,000 cannot compare themselves with directly recruited Senior Accountants placed in the scale of pay ₹ 6,500-10,500, if the pay of the Senior Accountants in the pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 is higher due to ACP (Assured Career Progression) Scheme — This chunk is part of a court case O.A. No. 2117 of 2005, where 46 applicants who were promoted to Senior Accountants in the pay scale of 5,500-9,000 compared their pay with directly recruited Senior... — Facts : There are 46 Applicants in this OA who joined service as Lower Division Clerks in Postal Department and rose to the position of Senior Accountants in the scale of Pay of ₹ 5,500-9,500 and retired from service also. They compare their pay scale with directly recruited Senior Accountants in the pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500, who were given upgradation of their pay under ACP scheme and pray for equilizing their pay to that of juniors appointed as direct recruits. That prayer was allowed by CAT by Order, dated 28-4-2010 granting entitlements to be given similar treatment in the matter of grant of pay scale given to their established juniors from the same date with all consequential benefits. For this order, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Ram Sarup Ganda and others [ 2006 (2) SCALE 440 ]. That order of the Tribunal was set aside by the Division Bench of High Court on the ground of non-consideration of Rule 8 of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) by CAT and remitted the case back to CAT, Chandigarh for reconsideration. The Applicants were appointed as Junior Clerks in 1960s and were promoted as Junior Assistants in 1980s after passing Departmental Examination in 1970s. Later, they were promoted as Senior Accountants in the scale of pay of ₹ 5,500-9000 and retired from service in that capacity. The ACP was introduced in August, 1999 based on the recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission. The main objective of the scheme was to deal "with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardships faced by employees due to lack of promotional avenues." Clause 8 of the " Condition for grant of benefits " under ACP Scheme introduced as noted above will have no relevance to the seniority position of the employee and the financial upgradation granted to the employee shall be "purely personal." "There shall be no additional upgradation for senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has higher pay scale under ACP Scheme." The financial upgradation has no relevance to the seniority and only related to the number of years served without promotion. It is clear that the Applicants herein were promoted as Senior Accountants due to Restructuring Scheme (80-20). Thus the direct recruits junior to the Applicants entered as Junior Clerks and later promoted as Senior Accountants due to the virtue of two subsequent promotions. The juniors who were direct recruits obtained the upgradation pay scale as they had completed 24 years of regular service. Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case, Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and another [O.A. No. 156-J.K. 2009 ] relying on their earlier decision of similar case passed by Tribunal, Madan Gopal Sharma and others v. Union of India and others [ O.A. No. 842 JK 2000 ] decided on 17-11-2009 and also the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan v. Union of India and others [ O.A. No. 96 -CH-2007 ] decided that directly recruited juniors based on ACP Scheme who got higher pay cannot be equated to their promotee seniors who rose from Lower Division Clerks and obtained two promotions in their department. That case cannot be relied upon by the Applicants. Rule 9 of the Haryana Scheme referred by Applicants was considered by Apex Court and held that Haryana Scheme does not bear any similarity to the Clause 8 of the Central Scheme as the two clauses are under different footings. The Haryana Scheme deals with disparity in pay of a senior direct recruit and a junior promotee. Clause 8 of the Central Scheme rules out any "additional financial upgradation" to a senior employee on the ground that his junior in the grade has got higher pay scale under the scheme. The financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme is purely personal and cannot be linked to pay structure of senior employee in the same grade. Apex Court held in Ganda's case (supra) ordered stepping up of the pay of the promotee based on Clause 9 referred to above. The Applicants herein obtained already two promotions and went up to the post of Senior Accountant. Therefore, they were not given the first and second financial upgradation .This fact is evident from the facts. This fact is also not denied or disputed by the Applicants. The Applicants in the O.A. only prayed to fix their scale of pay as ₹ 6,500-10,500 with all consequential benefits and they have not made any prayer to step up their pay. The direction in Ashok Kumar's case does not entitle the Applicants to get their scale of pay altered or modified. If there is an anomaly in the pay structure of the Applicants and their juniors, "remedy lies elsewhere and the Applicants cannot seek parity in fixation especially on the face of the clear interdiction contained in Clause 8 of the Scheme." In the view above, it was held:

IT Rules

Applicants promoted as Senior Accountants in the normal course in the pay scale of ₹ 5,500-9,000 cannot compare themselves with directly recruited Senior Accountants placed in the scale of pay ₹ 6,500-10,500, if the pay of the Senior Accountants in the pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 is higher due to ACP (Assured Career Progression) Scheme — This chunk is part of a court case O.A. No. 2117 of 2005, where 46 applicants who were promoted to Senior Accountants in the pay scale of 5,500-9,000 compared their pay with directly recruited Senior... — Facts : There are 46 Applicants in this OA who joined service as Lower Division Clerks in Postal Department and rose to the position of Senior Accountants in the scale of Pay of ₹ 5,500-9,500 and retired from service also. They compare their pay scale with directly recruited Senior Accountants in the pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500, who were given upgradation of their pay under ACP scheme and pray for equilizing their pay to that of juniors appointed as direct recruits. That prayer was allowed by CAT by Order, dated 28-4-2010 granting entitlements to be given similar treatment in the matter of grant of pay scale given to their established juniors from the same date with all consequential benefits. For this order, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Ram Sarup Ganda and others [ 2006 (2) SCALE 440 ]. That order of the Tribunal was set aside by the Division Bench of High Court on the ground of non-consideration of Rule 8 of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) by CAT and remitted the case back to CAT, Chandigarh for reconsideration. The Applicants were appointed as Junior Clerks in 1960s and were promoted as Junior Assistants in 1980s after passing Departmental Examination in 1970s. Later, they were promoted as Senior Accountants in the scale of pay of ₹ 5,500-9000 and retired from service in that capacity. The ACP was introduced in August, 1999 based on the recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission. The main objective of the scheme was to deal "with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardships faced by employees due to lack of promotional avenues." Clause 8 of the " Condition for grant of benefits " under ACP Scheme introduced as noted above will have no relevance to the seniority position of the employee and the financial upgradation granted to the employee shall be "purely personal." "There shall be no additional upgradation for senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has higher pay scale under ACP Scheme." The financial upgradation has no relevance to the seniority and only related to the number of years served without promotion. It is clear that the Applicants herein were promoted as Senior Accountants due to Restructuring Scheme (80-20). Thus the direct recruits junior to the Applicants entered as Junior Clerks and later promoted as Senior Accountants due to the virtue of two subsequent promotions. The juniors who were direct recruits obtained the upgradation pay scale as they had completed 24 years of regular service. Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case, Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and another [O.A. No. 156-J.K. 2009 ] relying on their earlier decision of similar case passed by Tribunal, Madan Gopal Sharma and others v. Union of India and others [ O.A. No. 842 JK 2000 ] decided on 17-11-2009 and also the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan v. Union of India and others [ O.A. No. 96 -CH-2007 ] decided that directly recruited juniors based on ACP Scheme who got higher pay cannot be equated to their promotee seniors who rose from Lower Division Clerks and obtained two promotions in their department. That case cannot be relied upon by the Applicants. Rule 9 of the Haryana Scheme referred by Applicants was considered by Apex Court and held that Haryana Scheme does not bear any similarity to the Clause 8 of the Central Scheme as the two clauses are under different footings. The Haryana Scheme deals with disparity in pay of a senior direct recruit and a junior promotee. Clause 8 of the Central Scheme rules out any "additional financial upgradation" to a senior employee on the ground that his junior in the grade has got higher pay scale under the scheme. The financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme is purely personal and cannot be linked to pay structure of senior employee in the same grade. Apex Court held in Ganda's case (supra) ordered stepping up of the pay of the promotee based on Clause 9 referred to above. The Applicants herein obtained already two promotions and went up to the post of Senior Accountant. Therefore, they were not given the first and second financial upgradation .This fact is evident from the facts. This fact is also not denied or disputed by the Applicants. The Applicants in the O.A. only prayed to fix their scale of pay as ₹ 6,500-10,500 with all consequential benefits and they have not made any prayer to step up their pay. The direction in Ashok Kumar's case does not entitle the Applicants to get their scale of pay altered or modified. If there is an anomaly in the pay structure of the Applicants and their juniors, "remedy lies elsewhere and the Applicants cannot seek parity in fixation especially on the face of the clear interdiction contained in Clause 8 of the Scheme." In the view above, it was held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text