The court emphasized the application of the ACP Scheme and Recruitment Rules in considering the petitioner's claim for promotion and flying pay, highlighting that the petitioner's experience could not substitute for the requirement of a DGCA license and that he could not claim parity with the flying pay admissible to Sqn. Ldr. of the Air force.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated 12. 10. 2006, passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in OA No. 2080/2006. By the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application preferred by the petitioner denying his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Flight Engineer (SFE) and also denying his claim for flying pay @ Rs. 7,000/- p. m.

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the Indian Air Force in 1967. He came to aviation Research Centre (ARC) on deputation in 1989, while he was serving as warrant Officer in the Indian Air Force. On 9. 7. 1991, he was absorbed as a junior Flight Engineer (JFE) a class 'a' post in ARC and so he resigned from the air Force. Petitioner states he served as a JFE with sincerity. In August, 1996 he represented to the respondents against his being given flying pay @ Rs. 900/-p. m. (pre-revised), which as revised to Rs. 5,500/- p. m. instead of Rs. 1,200 p. m. (pre-revised), which stands revised to Rs. 7,000/- p. m. in May, 2005. He further represented to the respondents that he be promoted to the post of SFE by claiming that he fulfilled the required eligibility criteria. The representations of the petitioner were rejected by the respondents in September, 2004 Petitioner sought review of the decision of the respondents in November, 2004, which was again rejected by the respondents in July, 2006. The respondents sent a further communication dated 22nd August, 2006 wherein, they stated:-"2]. the case was taken up with Cab. Sectt. and DOP and T. They have opined, that a amendment would be needed to the existing RRs for the post of SFE, so as to provide career progression from JFE for those who joined ARC on re-employment before attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, a case would be taken up with the 6th Pay Commission depending upon the recommendations of the Cadre review Committee. 3]. With regard to enhancement of flying pay ; Cab. Sectt. have turned down the case after deliberations with the DOPandt. The deliberations state that the yardstick governing the quantum of flying allowance is the post held by the individual and not the pay scale. No privileges related to status of the higher post will be applicable in the event of financial upgradation in the grade of higher post. "

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, petitioner preferred Original Application No. 2080/2006 before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the order impugned before us. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner primarily sought the relief of quashing of the aforesaid communication dated 22nd August, 2006 of the respondents and a direction to the respondents to amend the existing Recruitment Rules for promotion of the petitioner to the post of SFE and also sought compensation from the respondents.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal took note of the fact that the petitioner had been granted the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. From the letter dated 22nd August, 2006 of the respondents, it was clear that at present under the Recruitment Rules there was no provision for promotion from the post of JFE to post of SFE. Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in State of Tripura and Ors. Vs. K. K. Roy AIR 2004 SC 1249 wherein, the Supreme Court held that every employee should have an avenue of promotion to a higher post and that such a right cannot be waived and there can be no estoppel pleaded against the employee to deny the right to be considered for promotion. However, the said judgment itself took note of the fact that to ameliorate the situation where employees were not having sufficient promotional avenues the Assured Career Progression Schemes had been introduced. Consequently, the Tribunal distinguished the said decision since petitioner had admittedly been given the first upgradation under the ACP Scheme and therefore it could not be said that the petitioner had been deprived of hi