IMPORTANT POINT
Continuity of service must be honored in determining Grade Pay upgradation, and promotion eligibility requires compliance with mandatory procedures.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

Approach to this Writ Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made with the following reliefs:

“In the premises aforesaid, it is respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, issue notice to the respondent, call for records, issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued commanding directing the respondent authority to fix grade pay of Rs. 2400/- from the month of April, 2003 and Rs. 2800/- from the month of April, 2013 and to fix pension with the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- and upon fixing grade pay to pay arrear and to reconsider the promotion of the petitioner and to give promotional benefit to the petitioner as admissible and/or to pass such other order or orders or direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper and upon hearing the parties perusal of records and show causes, if any, your Lordships be pleased to make the rule absolute.”

2. The case has a checkered history. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 11.03.1993 and was posted at Guwahati. While in service, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him which resulted in an order of penalty dated 30.10.2000 by which he was removed from service. The departmental appeal which was preferred by the petitioner was also rejected on 19.07.2001 whereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C)/4648/2003. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.08.2011 whereby the penalty of removal was interfered with and was substituted by stoppage of increment for 2 years without cumulative effect. It was also directed that for all purposes, other than back wages, the continuity of the service of the petitioner would be maintained. An application for review filed by the respondent authorities against the aforesaid order dated 11.08.2011 was also rejected and ultimately, vide an order dated 22.03.2012, the petitioner was reinstated. After such reinstatement, the petitioner was given one Grade Pay upgradation and on 30.11.2016, he had retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner, as would be reflected from the relief claimed which has been extracted above is with regard to a claim for upgradation of two Grade Pays. The petitioner has also claimed payment of pension at the appropriate rate after upgradation of the aforesaid Grade Pay. The claim is also with regard to promotion which, according to the petitioner, was wrongly denied to him.

3. I have heard Shri KK Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mrs. R Devi, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the respondents.

4. Shri Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the initial order of removal from service dated 30.10.2000 was interfered with by this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.08.2011 and the said judgment and order has attained finality as the review filed against it was also rejected. He submits that there is a clear direction for maintaining the continuity of service of the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of such direction, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to give all benefits arising out of such continuous service, except back wages which was specifically mentioned by this Court.

5. By drawing the attention of this Court to the reason cited for such deprivation, Shri Phukan, learned counsel has submitted that the ACR for the last year has been taken into consideration for holding him ineligible for the upgradation of Grade Pay. He submits that the concerned Rules itself prescribe that to be eligible, an incumbent is required to secure minimum 3 “Good” gradings in the ACR and he submits that the petitioner meets the said requirement. H