S. Manikumar, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition, is to the order made in O.A. No. 310/00020/2014, dated 18.03.2015, on the file of the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, by which, the petitioner is directed to place the case of the 1st respondent for consideration by the Screening Committee, to decide the eligibility of the 1st respondent, for 1st and 2nd time bound upgradation under EPP of BSNL, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of passing of the order. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:

The 1st respondent, while working as Chief Accounts Officer, on Officiating Basis in Gujarat Circle, was prosecuted in ACB Case No. 3/2006. Learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court, Vadodara, acquitted him, by a detailed judgment, dated 31.03.2008. In the mean while, BSNL Corporate Office, has issued Executive Promotion Policy (EPP) on 18.01.2007. As per the policy, all the Executive Officers, like the 1st respondent, were entitled to first time bound promotion, with effect from 01.10.2004 and second time bound promotion on 01.10.2009. Time bound promotion would be based on performance, during the period of service to the next IDA scale, upon completion of five years of service from the date of grant of 1st time bound promotion. Due to the pendency of the Criminal case, the Screening Committee did not recommend the case of the 1st respondent for the first time bound promotion. Though he was acquitted by the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court, Vadodara, in view of the appeal, preferred by the State of Gujarat, he was not given promotion. In the mean while, his juniors were given first and second time bound promotion. Representations were given by the 1st respondent. However, he was promoted as Chief Accounts Officer, on ad-hoc basis, with effect from 28.03.2009 and also got his regular promotion with effect from 31.12.2009. As he was not given time bound promotion, in terms of the Executive Promotion Policy (EPP), an application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed, seeking for a direction to the appellant to grant first time bound promotion to him, to the E-4 scale of Rs. 29100-50500 (i.e.) CAO Grade scale with effect from 01.10.2004 and second time bound promotion E-65 pay scale of Rs. 32900-58000 (i.e., DGM (Finance) Grade Scale with effect from 01.10.2009 with all consequential benefits, including arrears.

2. Opposing the said prayer, the writ petitioner, in their reply statement, submitted that first time bound promotion would be from 01.10.2004, subject to the officer having (i) prescribed Bench Mark of APAR for the last four years, i.e., from 01.10.2000 to 30.09.2004 (ii) the officer should have touched the minimum of the next IDA Scale and (iii) Vigilance clearance for the prescribed period. The 1st respondent was under suspension from 15.07.2004 to 14.02.2005, which falls under the period of consideration for the 1st time bound promotion. Therefore, as per the rules, the case of the 1st respondent was not considered.

3. It was also stated in the reply statement that the Criminal Appeal was pending from the year 2008 and therefore, any further act ion, would be only after the outcome of the criminal appeal. BSNL has stated that when the case of the respondent for the first time bound promotion, was referred to the Vigilance, as per BSNL HQ order, dated 20.09.2012 and hence, his case could not be put up to the Screening Committee.

4. On the above rival submissions and placing reliance on the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Chandu Ram v. State of H.P. wherein, the Court has relied on the decision made in Surinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh1985 (3) SLR 254 and Balak Singh Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and by observing that pendency of criminal appeal cannot be termed as extension of judicial proceedings, at Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the common order, made