IMPORTANT POINT
The unilateral withdrawal of financial benefits without due process violates principles of natural justice, necessitating communication of adverse ACR entries to the employee.

JUDGMENT :

(K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.)

This judgment shall dispose of two OP(CAT)s.

2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.1123/2014 dated 24.12.2018, as well as in R.A.No.14/2019 dated 10.04.2019, the petitioner and the Union of India preferred two separate OP(CAT)s. The OP(CAT).No.238/2019 was preferred by the applicant and the OP(CAT).No.244/2019 was preferred by the Union of India and its officers. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the applicant and the respondents as per their rank in the OA.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of this OP(CAT)s in brief are as follows:

The applicant, V. Prakasan, joined the post of temporary Overseer (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 on 06.10.1976 in Andaman Lakshadweep Harbour Works [hereinafter referred to as ‘ALHW’]. Thereafter, the applicant was selected as Direct recruit and joined in the post of Engineering Assistant on 22.11.1979 in the pay scale of 425-700. On completion of 5 years service as Engineering Assistant, the applicant, along with certain other Engineering Assistants, was placed in the pay scale of 1660-2660, with effect from 31.03.1994. Vide Annexure-A5 office order, Engineering Assistant was re-named as Junior Engineers in the pay scale of 1400-2300/-.

4. The applicant was promoted to the post of Inspector of Works in the pay scale of 1600-2660, with effect from 31.03.1994 as per Annexure-A6. On completion of the combined service as Engineering Assistant and Inspector of Works, applicant’s pay scale was upgraded to 2000-3500 with effect from 22.11.1995.

5. As per Annexure-A8, the benefit of time bound placement was made available to the applicant in the scale of 6500-10500. On the recommendation of the 5^th CPC, the post of Overseer in the pre- revised scale of 1200-2040 stood merged with that of Junior Engineer in the pay scale of 1400-2300 and the post of Junior Engineer was placed in the revised pay scale of 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996. In addition to the above merger of Inspector of Works with the Junior Engineer, acceptance was called from the applicant. The applicant gave his consent. As per the conditions attached to the merger, his pay was protected.

6. That as per Annexure-A11, the applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the pay scale of 6500-10500. The 4^th respondent granted first ACP to the applicant with effect from 09.08.1999 in the pay scale of 6500-10500 which, he was already drawing. On completion of 24 years of service reckoned from 22.11.1979, the respondents granted 2^nd financial upgradation to the applicant on 22.11.2003. On the implementation of the 6^th CPC, the applicant sought 3^rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service.

7. Prior to his retirement, the applicant submitted a representation dated 21.03.2014, claiming the ACP benefit which was granted to the similarly placed employees. The respondents rejected the said application. In that background, the applicant approached the Tribunal claiming the following relief:

“(a) call for the records from the office of respondent No. 2 to 4 and hold that the impugned orders at Annexure A-16, A-19, A-33 and A-37 are illegal and invalid and thus, quash and set aside the same.

(b) declare that the applicant is entitled to the two ACPs as also the 3rd MACP respectively as on 09-08- 1999, 6-10-2000 and 6-10-2006,

(c) as a consequence to the above, it may further be declared that recovery of alleged over payment of pay and allowances to the tune of Rs 11 lakhs plus being effected by way of Withholding/ adjustment of pension and insistence of payment of the difference of Rs 1.31 lakhs plus is illegal and quash and set aside orders relating to the same,

(d) direct the respondents to restore the grant of first and 2nd ACP,

(e) And, since the applicant is also entitled to the grant of 3rd MACP w.e.f. 06-10-2006, respondents be directed to upgrade the grading in respect of the years 2004-05 and 2006-07 as "very good" which is the bench mark for the post he