IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that pay scale rationalization should be ignored for the purpose of the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, based on the application of Clarification No.35 issued by the DoP&T.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the Union of India and its functionary challenging the order dated January 5, 2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.3799/2012 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondents herein.

2. The facts as noted from the record are that between the years 1986-92, the respondents joined the DGAQA (petitioner No.1) as Senior Scientific Assistant (SSA). As per then Recruitment Rules (RRs) Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) is the promotional post for SSA, Foreman and Chief Draughtsman. The post of Foreman had two grades hierarchy (Foreman and Assistant Foreman) but the SSA did not had two grades hierarchy. An Office Memorandum dated November 11, 1988 was issued by Ministry of Defence for DRDO and DGI (now DGQA), the relevant extract whereof, reads as under:

"The undersigned is directed to say that with reference to CA No.9 & 10 0/1983, the Board of Arbitration award recommended that Senior Scientific Assistant (SSAs) may be given the Third Pay Commission's Scale of Rs. 840-1040 in the same proportion as that obtaining on the date of the award between 27 Foreman and Assistant Foreman m the concerned organization i.e. DRDO and DGI. These orders will take effect from .................."

3. An Arbitration award was passed. The cadre of Senior Scientific Assistants (SSAs) in DRDO and DGI was recommended to be re-structured in the same manner and pattern in which the post of Foreman was. The Board of Arbitration Award referred to the OM dated November 11, 1988 and extended the award to DGAQA vide letter dated August 14, 1992. By the time, the award was extended to DGAQA, 4th Central Pay Commission (`CPC', for short) had already been implemented, and hence, the revised scale as per 4th CPC was Rs.2375-3500/- for SSA.

4. The consequence of the extension of award was that the cadre of SSA was rationalised and restructured by providing two grades hierarchical structure in the same pattern as was the cadre of Foreman. The SSA cadre was rationalised and restructured by redistributing 101 posts in two hierarchical grades, as was between the posts of Foreman and Assistant Foreman i.e. 43% and 57%., i.e. SSA (HS) and SSA (LS). The Recruitment Rules were amended and notified by making SSA (HS) a promotional post for SSA (LS).

5. In accordance with the re-structuring, SSA (HS) was upgraded to higher pay scale/grade of Rs.2375-3500/-, whereas SSA (LS) remained at their normal level in pay scale Rs.2000-3500/-. Both these are the scales of 4th CPC and corresponding scales in 5th CPC were Rs.7450-11500/- and Rs.6500-10500/-, respectively.

6. It was the case of the respondents herein that, pursuant to the recommendation of 6th CPC, SSA (HS) and SSA (LS) were merged with effect from January 01, 2006 and have been placed in a common replacement scale of PB-2 with a grade pay of Rs.4,600/- and the post has been redesignated as SSA(G). The grievance of the respondents was that they have not been granted, first financial upgradation after 12 years of service from the date of implementation of the scheme after ignoring the upgradation to SSA (HS) and as such they are entitled to ACP upgradation w.e.f. January 01, 2006.

7. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that the upgradation of the post in the cadre of SSA is similar to the case of Randhir Singh Kundu v. Union of India & Ors., OA No.1559/2000, decided on September 18, 2001 and Defence Marine Engineering Technical Staff Association (DMETS) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., OA No.1735/2005 which judicial pronouncements have attained finality. The Tribunal held that the respondents are similarly placed as the applicants in O.A. 1737/2005 and they also deserve the same benefit. Therefore, the respondents' upgradation to the post of SSA (HS) has to be ignored and they have to be considered for the grant of ACP benefit on completi