S. Ravindra Bhat, J. - (1.) IN these writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (hereafter the "ICAR") challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") dated 3.1.2014 in O.A. No. 1301/2012, on the ground that the CAT wrongly computed the respondent's period of service from 1971, instead of 1978, and accordingly directed the grant of the second financial upgradation in the Assured Career Progression Scheme ("ACP").
(2.) THE respondent was appointed as Junior Stenographer (re - designated Stenographer in September 1971) on 31.8.1971, subject to his passing the shorthand test, within 6 months from the date of appointment to the post. He qualified in the test of 19.4.1978. Consequently, his seniority was fixed from this date, in accordance with clause 5 of the appointment memo dated 31.8.1971. The respondent was issued an appointment order dated 31.8.1971, and then regularised with effect from 19.4.1978. He retired on 31.1.2008. On a representation of the respondent on 5.1.2001, he was granted second financial upgradation in the ACP Scheme with effect from 19.4.2002. His next representation dated 27.4.2011, seeking second ACP upgradation with effect from 9.8.1999 and not 19.4.2002, was rejected by the DPC on 1.1.2012, on the basis of para 3.1 of the OM of the Department of Personnel and Training ("DoPT") No. 35034/1/97 -Estt (D) dated 9.8.1999. Aggrieved, he moved the CAT, seeking parity with another employee, one Ms. Jeevan Asha.
(3.) BEFORE the CAT, he argued that Ms. Jeevan Asha passed the stenography test, and was consequently regularised on 16.5.1980, while he was so regularized on 19.4.1978; that Ms. Asha was given ad -hoc appointment dated 24.1.1978, while he was given the same from 31.8.1971. In the seniority list for that grade, he was shown at Sl. No. 36, and Ms. Asha at Sl. No. 41. Yet, when Ms. Asha represented to the petitioners on 4.2.2011 for grant of 2nd ACP upgradation, it was granted to her with effect from 24.1.2002 by office order dated 18.3.2011. The respondent argued that that if Ms. Asha could be granted the second upgradation by computing the 24 years from the date of her ad hoc appointment, then likewise, he too should be entitled to have his service computed from the date of ad hoc appointment. Failure to recognise his entitlement was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was also sought to be argued that ACP benefits should be granted after including the duration of ad - hoc service.;