Oral: Manmohan Sarin, C.J.

1. The question arising in this appeal is as to whether the respondent is entitled to the second upgradation in the ACP scheme. The learned Single Judge found him so entitled.

2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, relies on Rule 21 of SCS Pension Rules hereafter referred to as `Rules. Rule 21 essentially provides for the treatment counting of period spent on leave. In terms of the proviso to Rule 21, appointing authority while granting leave may allow the period of leave as qualifying service. Appellants contention is that since the respondent had not served on account of either being under suspension or having been dismissed from service for the periods 16.02.1984 to 31.08.1984 and 01.09.1984 to 02.10.1989. The appellants simply granted to the respondent half pay leave for 198 days and extra ordinary leave for the subsequent period from 01.09.1984 to 02.10.1989 i.e. 5 years 7 months and 27 days. It was thus not to be treated as qualifying service without specific declaration/order.

3. We may notice that the order of dismissal was set aside vide order-dated 19.09.1989, the competent authority passed the following order: -

"The Competent Auth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document