LNR, J.

1. The petitioner is working as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise at Hyderabad. The relevant service rules provide for financial upgradation (for short ‘upgradation’), in lieu of promotion, depending on the facts and circumstances. The petitioner was extended two upgradations and he became due for the third upgradation in 2011. The eligibility of an Assistant Commissioner to be extended the benefit of upgradation is assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) by undertaking an exercise, akin to the one for promotion. The DPC which met on 21.12.2011 found the petitioner eligible for being extended the benefit of third upgradation.

2. Before an order extending the benefit of upgradation came to be passed by the appointing authority, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 27.12.2011 framing certain charges referable to his functioning in the year 2002 at Sadasivapet. Taking the same into account, the respondents did not extend the benefit of upgradation.

3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1457 of 2012 before the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents. He pleaded that once the DPC has cleared his case, there was no basis for the respondents to withhold the benefit of upgradation. The respondents filed a counter opposing the O.A. They pleaded that though the D.P.C. found the petitioner to be eligible for extension of the benefit of upgradation, by the time the orders implementing the same came to be issued, charges were framed against him. They have pressed into service certain circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T). Through its order, dated 02.08.2013, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Hence this writ petition.

4. Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eligibility or otherwise of an employee for promotion or other benefits is to be assessed as on the date on which the DPC meets and any development that takes place subsequent thereto, if at all, would be considered only at the next stage. He submits that mere issuance of charge sheet that too at a later point of time does not at all provide any justification for the respondents to withhold the benefit, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman ((1991) 4 SCC 109).

5. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the assessment by the DPC is only recommendatory in nature and it is ultimately for the appointing authority to take a final decision on the matter relating to promotion or extension of the benefit. He contends that the recommendation of the DPC by itself does not confer any right. It is also his case that the fact situation in the present case is akin to the one for which sealed cover procedure can be adopted.

6. On account of the length of service rendered by the petitioner, he became eligible to be considered for extension of the third upgradation. The appointing authority has also forwarded the case of the petitioner to the DPC and the latter in turn found him to be eligible. The subsequent issuance of charge sheet against the petitioner was treated as the basis to deny him the benefit of upgradation.

7. The case on hand presents a typical situation, which one rarely comes across. Had the charge sheet been issued a week earlier than the date on which it emanated, the DPC would have been under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner and put its assessment in a sealed cover. In case the disciplinary proceedings concluded and it emerged that the charges were held not proved, an occasion would have arisen for opening of the sealed cover. If the assessment of the DPC was that the petitioner was eligible, he would not have been entitled for being extended all the benefits with retrospective effect. If on the other hand, the assessment was tha