Ajay Tewari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -Union of India has challenged the impugned order dated 22.4.2008 (Annexure P -13), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench whereby O.A. No. 1158 -PB -2004, filed by respondent No. 1, seeking retrospective promotion w.e.f. 29.8.1988 was allowed.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 joined as a Postal Assistant on 17.4.1969. On 15.9.1973, he cleared the PORMS Accounts Examination and was posted in the Accounts Branch. By office order dated 2.5.1988, he was asked to officiate as Assistant Postmaster {APM (Accounts)} on adhoc basis and by a subsequent order dated 29.8.1988 (Annexure A -3), his services were regularized as such. It was his case that on this substantive promotion he had to be placed in the Lower Selection Grade (LSG) and, therefore, his reflection at Sr. No. 141 in the seniority list (Annexure A -2) in respect of LSG officials as on 6.2.2002 was wrong and it should have been between Sr. No. 16 and 17 in view of his promotion to the LSG cadre w.e.f. 19.8.1988. It was the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had been promoted to the LSG cadre only on 1.10.1991. The Tribunal noticed that at one stage promotion order of respondent No. 1 as APM (Accounts) w.e.f. 29.8.1988 had been cancelled, but on his representation, order dated 24.5.1993 (Annexure A -5) was passed holding that his promotion as APM (Accounts) w.e.f. 29.8.1988 was as per rules. The Tribunal also noticed order dated 23.1.1998 (Annexure A -7) whereby it was reiterated that his seniority had to be reckoned by taking the date of entry into LSG accounts line as 29.8.1988. The interpretation sought to be placed by the petitioner that the said order only gave respondent No. 1 a financial up -gradation under TBOP was not accepted by the Tribunal since the order did not reflect that he was appointed to the LSG accounts line under a financial up -gradation scheme but, on the contrary, the order indicated that it was a regular promotion.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has sought to reiterate the argument that the order, Annexure A -7, represents a financial up -gradation and not a promotion. He has taken us through the record. Having gone through the same, we find that the interpretation put by the Tribunal is correct. It is clear that after passing the Accounts Examination, respondent No. 1 was first promoted as APM (Accounts) on adhoc basis, and later -on by order dated 29.8.1988 on regular basis. Subsequently, in Annexure A -7, it was clarified that this promotion would relate to Lower Selection Grade. A perusal of Annexures A -3 and A -7 can lead only to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was granted regular promotion and not merely financial up -gradation under the TBOP Scheme. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs.;