The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to count their service for ACP/MACP benefits, the principle of treating similarly situated persons alike, and the relevance of previous court decisions and statutory provisions in determining service benefits.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar; CJ.:-

1. This writ petition is filed by Union of India and its officers challenging the order made in OA No. 1338/JK/2013 dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) in allowing Original Application filed by the respondents.

2. The respondents herein filed the said Original Application challenging the Circular bearing No. 41002/ACP/NC/E1 DPC (PP & Sub) dated 03.07.2013 which modified/changed the date of grant of 2nd financial up gradation under ACP scheme, contending that said Circular is against the policy dated 19.05.2009 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensioners, which declares that no past case will ne reopened regarding up-gradation under ACPS and MACPS and it will not be considered as anomaly and no benefit can be withdrawn which has been granted for no misrepresentation.

3. The contention of the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that they were appointed as Switch Board Attendants on 11.07.1979 and the posts of the respondents were re-designated as Lower Division Clerks (LCD) on 23.05.1984 and on completion of 12 years the 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) was allowed to the respondents and on completion of 24 years the 2nd ACP was given but on the contrary the clarification Circular issued not to re-open the grant of ACP/MACP benefits already granted, the Circular was issued on 03.07.2013 and the same was challenged. The Central Administrative Tribunal, following an earlier order made in OA No. 207/JK/2012 dated 18.07.2014, wherein it was held that period of service rendered in the industrial cadre had to be counted for ACP/MACP benefits already gained, allowed the Original Application.

4. Aggrieved by the same this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners by contending that the basis on which ACP/MACP benefits are conferred is to give financial up gradation to the persons who are not getting promotion i.e. to avoid stagnation. The respondents herein were granted ACP status from the post of Switch Board Attendants and the period of service giving ACP can be counted only from the date of giving the post of LDC and not from the date of their appointment as Switch Board Attendants.

5. This Court put a pointed question to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as to whether the post of LDC is a promotional post with higher salary than the post of Switch Board Attendant. The learned counsel fairly submitted that it was only a re-designation and not a promotional post and there is no difference in salary or pay also i.e. the post of LDC and Switch Board Attendant carries equal pay scale. In the said circumstances the ACP/MACP Scheme has to be looked into to ascertain as to whether the respondents are entitled to count their service as Switch Board Attendants along with the service of LDC post.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners produced the office memorandum No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009 wherein it is stated that the Sixth Pay Commission in Para. 6.1.15 of its report has recommended Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). As per the recommendations the financial up-gradation will be available to the next higher grade pay whenever an employee has completed 12 years’ continuous service in the same grade. The word, “same grade” is more relevant for determination of the issue raised in this writ petition.

7. It is an admitted fact that Switch Board Attendant and LDC posts are in the same grade/cadre with same pay scale. The scale of pay is same for both the posts and the respondents having been placed in the cadre of LDC’s from the post of Switch Board Attendants on redesignation of the post and they having been paid the same grade pay, the Central Administrative Tribunal was fully justified in ordering that respondents are entitled to get the ACP on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service of their first appointment as Switch Board Atten