JUDGMENT :

(Abhay J. Mantri, J.)

Heard. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 27-02-2020, passed in Original Application No.979/2018, by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short, the "Tribunal"), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner claiming to set aside the impugned communication dated 14-11-2018, issued by the respondent no.2, in his favour.

3. On 24-08-1984, the petitioner was appointed as a Mukadam. On 24-08-1996, the petitioner received the ‘first benefit’ of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short - ACPS). Thereafter, Vide Government Resolution dated 29-09-2003, the petitioner was absorbed as a Karkoon from the post of Mukadam accordingly, his pay scale was fixed as per the said Government Resolution. After that, on 29-04-2008, he was promoted to ‘Civil Engineer Assistant’ in the Class-III cadre. On 31-08-2015, he retired from the service.

4. On 14-12-2017, he made a representation to respondent No. 2 for grant of a Second benefit under the ACPS. However, vide communication dated 14-11-2018, respondent no.2 informed him about negating his claim for grant of a Second benefit under the ACPS. Aggrieved by the said communication/order, he approached the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 27-02-2020, dismissed the Original Application. Being disgruntled by the same, he has preferred this petition.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent no.2 has misinterpreted the Government Resolution dated 01-07-2011 (for short ‘the GR’) while negating the Second benefit under the ACPS. Respondent no.2 erred in observing that twice an up-gradation in salary was given to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of a Second ACPS. In fact, the petitioner has received only one promotion, but respondent no.2 wrongly observed that the petitioner was promoted to Class-III cadre on 24-08-2008, and from that date he has not completed 12 years of service, therefore, he is not entitled to the Second benefit under the ACPS. The said observations in the letter are contrary to the terms and conditions in the GR and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside in this petition.

6. Per Contra, Learned Advocate for respondent no.2 strenuously argued that as per the GR, the second benefit under the ACPS would be given to employees who have completed 24 years of service in the same cadre. However, the petitioner has not completed his 24 years of service in the Class-III cadre and therefore he is not entitled to the Second benefits under the ACP Scheme. Secondly, he submitted that on 29-04-2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Civil Engineer Assistant in the Class-III cadre. As such twice, he had received the up-gradation in the pay scale, therefore also he was not entitled to the second benefit. It is also contended that on 29-02-2003, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Class-IV to the post of Class-III and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Civil Engineer Assistant in Class-III cadre. Thus, twice he had received a promotion or up-gradation in the pay scale, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief as claimed. Alternatively, it is argued that the petitioner cannot be given the second benefit under the ACPS as he has not completed uninterrupted 12 years’ service in the post of Civil Engineer Assistant, hence the learned Advocate for respondent no.2 has submitted that passing of the order by the learned Tribunal is just, legal, and proper and no interference is required to it.

7. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and perusal of the record, the following short, but crucial questions arise:-

(i) Whether the conversion of post-Mukadam to Karkoon (Clerk) can be said to have a promotion or up-gradation in the pay scale; and

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the second benefits under th