Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune and others vs Aruna Krishna Murthy and another

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT for short), Bangalore Bench in Original Application No.442/2009 is the subject matter of these petitions. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to grant 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP for short) benefit from 26.6.2006 and 26.11.2007 respectively to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in terms of ACP Scheme.

The records reveal that the 1st respondent was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC for short) on 1.6.1985 and the 2nd respondent was appointed as LDC on 11.2.1988. While working as LDCs, the respondents appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Stenographer Grade-III. Based on the performance in the examination, Respondents 1 and 2 were appointed as Stenographer Grade-III on 26.10.1994 and 26.11.1995 respectively. After 12 years of service as Stenographer Grade-III, the Respondents 1 and 2 claimed the benefit of ACP Scheme announced by the department. Such request of the respondents is negatived by the department on the ground that the respondents were already promoted directly to the post of Stenographer Grade III from the post of LDC and therefore they are not entitled for the benefit of ACP. Such order passed by the petitioners herein was questioned by the respondents before the CAT in O.A. No.442/2009, which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

The only contention raised by the petitioners is that Respondents 1 and 2 were promoted from the post of LDC to the post of Stenographer Grade III directly i.e., the respondents got double promotion from LDC to UDC and thereafter to Stenographer Grade III and therefore the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of ACP Scheme.

Such contention of the department cannot be accepted. The question as to whether the appointment of Respondents 1 and 2 to the post of Stenographer Grade III should be treated as fresh appointment or promotion was referred to the higher authority in the department and ultimately, the clarification was issued vide Annexure-A8 dated 10.2.2000 produced along with the application filed before the CAT. The clarification issued by the higher authority of the department very clearly denotes that if the relevant recruitment rules provide for filling up of vacancies of Stenographers Grade ''D''/Junior Stenographers by direct recruitment, induction of LDCs to the aforesaid grade through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination may be treated as direct recruitment for the purpose of benefit under ACPs.

In the matter on hand, undisputedly, applications were invited from the candidates who are already working in the department as LDC and UDC to appear for the examination for the post of Stenographer Grade-III. It is also not disputed that the respondents herein appeared for examination and got through the examination. On being successful in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted by the department, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Stenographer Grade III on 26.10.1994 and 26.11.1995 respectively. It is not in dispute that the stenographer cadre is a different channel altogether than the cadre of LDC or UDC. The very fact that opportunity was given to the candidates who are already working in the department to appear for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Stenographer Grade III would itself clearly reveal that any person who is working in the department may apply for the said post and consequently appear for the examination. Since the respondents were more meritorious, they were selected in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and were appointed as Stenographer Grade III. Hence the appointment of the respondents was to be treated as direct recruitment to the post of Stenographer Grade III. The department has taken the very stand in the clarification mentioned supra and hence the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of ACP after completion of 12 years of service in the post of Stenographer Grade III.

It is not in dispute that the ACP Scheme was introduced on 9.8.1989 wherein the benefit would be given to the employees who have stagnated in the particular post for 12 years/24 years. The first benefit would be given after 12 years of service and the second benefit would be given after 24 years of service. Since the respondents were not promoted to the next higher post even after 12 years from their appointment as Stenographer Grade III i.e., from 26.10.1994 and 26.11.1995 respectively, they are entitled to the benefit of 1st ACP after completion of 12 years. Same is the order passed by the Tribunal. Since we find that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, no interference is called for.

Petitions fail and the same stand dismissed.