Employees who refused promotion before the ACP Scheme came into effect were not entitled to financial upgradation, and recovery proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice.

Common Order (Elipe Dharma Rao,J.,)

All these writ petitions are filed against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.565 and 523 of 2004 dated 17.02.2005.

.2. Petitioner Rathinam was originally appointed as Fitter and he was promoted as Senior Fitter on 29.08.1995, which he refused due to unavoidable family circumstances and domestic reasons. Petitioner Gandhi was originally appointed as Net Maker on 05.06.1974 and he was promoted as Junior Deck Hand on 05.01.1999. Thereafter, he was offered promotion, which he refused due to unavoidable family circumstances and domestic reasons. The petitioners in W.P.16099 of 2005 were originally appointed as Welder and Junior Clerk on 19.05.1978 and 212. 1977, respectively, and subsequently, they were promoted as Senior Welder and Senior Clerk on 16.07.1986 and in the year 1994, respectively, which they refused due to unavoidable family circumstances and domestic reasons. Petitioner V.R.Saroja was originally appointed as Junior Stenographer on 14.01.1972 and she was promoted subsequently as Head clerk, Senior Store Keeper, Accountant during 1994 and 2000 and she refused promotion on personal grounds. Petitioner A.Joseph was originally appointed as Junior Clerk on 18.08.1973 and was promoted as Store Keeper on 012. 1993 and he was not able to join because of his personal problems. Petitioner Lathifunisa was originally appointed as Junior Clerk on 01.06.1974 and promoted as Store Keeper on 212. 1993, in which post she has not joined and refused to take up due to her personal problems. Petitioner Vincent was originally appointed as Peon on 07.02.1973 and he was offered promotion on 25.04.1997 to the post of Attender, which he refused to join due to his personal grounds of health.

3. It is the case of the applicants that they were given the benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and according to the Scheme, on completion of 12 years, a promotion will be granted and at the end of 24 years, a further promotion will be granted. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the benefits of the ACP Scheme. However, by the impugned order dated 12.02.2004, the third respondent has withdrawn the financial benefit granted and ordered to initiate recovery proceedings, against which, the applicants filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

.4. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the applicants were offered promotions before ACP Scheme came into effect, though they had completed 12 years/24 years of service; that none of the applicants was eligible for the same as they have refused the first level promotion well before the date of implementation of the Scheme and in some cases more than once; and that necessarily they have to be debarred for further promotions for the prescribed period and therefore, under Condition No.10 of the Annexure-I to the Scheme, they have become eligible to the second upgradation after completing the required eligibility service under the ACP Scheme, subject to the condition that the period of debarment for regular promotion shall not count for the purpose. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the first level upgradations are not permissible under the Scheme and the second level upgradations will have to be regulated under condition No.10 of the Annexure to the Scheme, with a direction to recover excess amount paid to the applicants. Aggrieved by the above order, the applicants have filed the writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the Tribunal has failed to see that before passing the impugned order of recovery of the said amount from the applicants, no opportunity was given to the petitioners. Therefore, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the original application. He further contended that based on the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Honble High Court, t