V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur in OA No. 257/2003 vide which Harish Bulchandani, the petitioner in the original lis, was held entitled to benefit of first ACP which one is entitled to on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service under the Scheme. The order challenged by the petitioner dated 11.4.2003 (Annexure A-1) and dated 27/28.6.2002 (Annexure A-4) vide which the benefit of the scheme already given to the petitioner was withdrawn, were set aside by the Tribunal.
(2.) The only defence that came to be projected in defending the case of the petitioner was that having refused to accept promotion to a higher rank, the petitioner could not successfully claim benefit of the scheme as the benefit was available only to those who were stagnating on one post, there being no chance of promotion. The Tribunal while granting the relief primarily relied upon the decision of a coordinate, bench at Mumbai in OA No. 129/2003 in the case of V.A. Patil v. Union of India & Others, decided on 20.6.2003, facts of which case, it is contended, position were similar.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that despite repeated enquiries made from the concerned authorities, he has not been able to come to know as to whether the Union of India has challenged the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 129/2003 in the case of V.A. Patil (Supra). learned Counsel for the respondent, however, states on the basis of documents, that the judgment rendered by Mumbai Bench has since been implemented. Be that as it may, we have heard arguments independent of the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench in the matter referred to above.;