Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter be referred as CAT) Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in OA No.12-PB of 2011.
(2.) The undisputed facts that emanate from the pleadings are that respondent no.2 was promoted to P.S. Group - B in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- on purely temporary and ad hoc basis w.e.f. 01.07.2004 vide promotion order dated 22.06.2004. Such promotion order categorically stipulated that the promotion of respondent no.2 was for a period not exceeding one year or till the regularly approved officer is posted against the said post, whichever is earlier. It is also the admitted position between the parties that respondent no.2 continued to work on the higher post beyond the stipulated sanctioned period of one year till he retired from the said post upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2008. Respondent no.2 was aggrieved by the action of the department as he was not being paid arrears of the difference of salary for the period he had worked on the promoted post even though on ad hoc basis. Under such circumstances, he filed OA No.12-PB of 2011 in the CAT praying inter alia for the grant of pay in the scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- on account of performance of duties of the higher post w.e.f. 12.07.2004 to 31.07.2008 along with arrears and for revision and fixation of his retiral dues accordingly. CAT has allowed the prayer of respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 22.09.2011.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at length. He has vehemently argued that in terms of the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter be referred as DoPT) approval of DoPT was required for the continuance of the ad hoc promotion of respondent no.2 beyond one year and since the same was not received such ad hoc promotion would cease on the expiry of one year of promotion. He accordingly contends that the continuance of respondent no.2 on the promoted post on ad hoc basis beyond the initial stipulated period of one year was totally unauthorized and even though the employee may have worked on such promoted post till 31.07.2008 no benefit for such period could have been granted.;