ORDER :

1. In this group of matters, Civil Appeal No. 6359 of 2016 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the High Court¹ [The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] in Writ Petition (C) No. 2357 of 2014 is taken as the lead matter and the facts pertaining to said appeal are stated in brief for the purposes of dealing with the issues raised in this batch of cases.

2. The respondent-Vinay Kumar was appointed as Scientific Officer on 24th April, 1992 and was given requisite benefit under “Flexible Complementing Scheme (“the Scheme” for short) as Scientist ‘C’ with effect from 1st January, 1999. In terms of the Scheme, his case for being considered for the next higher grade as Scientist ‘D’ ought to have been taken up soon after completion of four years but it was done around December, 2003.

3. The respondent therefore represented that in terms of the Scheme, he be given the scale of Scientist ‘D’ with effect from 1st January, 2003. His representation having been rejected, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short) by filing Original Application No. 1476 of 2009. The Tribunal allowed his application relying upon the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 14263 of 2004 [S.K. Murti vs. Union of India and Others].

4. The decision so rendered by the Tribunal was questioned by the appellant by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 2357 of 2014 in the High Court, which relied upon the following observations made by the High Court in S.K. Murti:

“Suffice would it be to state that the memorandum requires Flexible Complementing Scheme in situ promotions to be W.P. (C) No. 2357/2014 Page 2 effected each year and for which the circular mandates that the assessments should be made well in advance keeping in view the crucial dates being 1st January and 1st July with effect wherefrom the Flexible Complementing Scheme in situ promotions have to be effected.

6. The last sentence of Para 20 is relied upon by the respondents to urge that the office memorandum clearly states that no promotion should be granted with retrospective effect. To this the answer by the petitioner is that the preceding two sentences makes it very clear that the Assessment Boards have to be constituted well in advance keeping in view the fact that 1st January and 1st April of each year are crucial dates to effect promotions.

7. Now, nobody can take advantage of his own wrong. Nothing has been shown to us by the respondents to justify not constituting the Assessment Board/Selection Committee in time.

8. That apart, instant case of promotion is not one where promotion has to be effected upon a vacancy arising. Subject to being found suitable the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in situ. The situation would be akin to granting a selection scale to a person and the date of eligibility would be the date wherefrom the benefit has to be accorded.

9. Under the circumstances, we hold in favour of the petitioner and direct that the benefit granted to the petitioner be reckoned with effect from 1.1.1999 instead of 19.9.2000. Arrears would be paid within 12 weeks from today but without any interest.”

The aforesaid Writ Petition (C) No. 14263 of 2004 was thus dismissed by the High Court.

5. At this stage, we may notice the following provisions of the Scheme framed vide Office Memorandum dated 09.11.1998:

“2. The recommendation of the Pay Commission to define “scientific administrators” and to exclude them from the benefit of in-situ promotions under Flexible Complementing Scheme and to bring them under the ambit of “Assured Career Progression Scheme” formulated by the Pay Commission has not been accepted. However, it has been decided that the Flexible Complementing Scheme should, as per its original objective, be made applicable only to scientists and technologists holding scientific posts in scientific and technology departments and who are engaged in scientific activities and services. It has also been decided th