ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Vide the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

i) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 (ii) Direct the Respondents to grant the 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACP in the Grade pay of Rs. 4600/-, Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 5400/- respectively to the Applicants w.e.f.

01.01.2006 as has been granted to other similarly placed DTPO's / KBO's in the other branches of the Government of India press. (iii) Grant the Applicants the arrears of pay and allowances in view of grant of prayer (i) above. (iv) Direct the respondents to recalculate their terminal benefits and pension after consideration of their last drawn pay in the Grade pay of Rs. 5400/-. (v) Direct the Respondents to pay costs to the Applicants (vi) Pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 which has been passed merely on the ground that the case of I D Sharma and Ors vs. Union of India of this Tribunal passed on 10.10.2013 is an isolated case and no special treatment is to be given to the applicant even though they are similarly situated.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that there is no basis of denial of the benefits to the applicant which is forthcoming. He draws strength from the argument in light of the observation made in a later case of Union of India & Ors. V/s Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. in W P (C) No. 16503/2022 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

“5. No appeal was preferred by the Department against the order passed in I.D. Sharma (supra.) The petitioners' SLP against the order in R.N. Srivastava (supra) has been dismissed. That being the position, the learned Tribunal had logically granted the same relief to the petitioners in the OA, as had already been granted to the other employees similarly placed. Indeed the learned Tribunal could not have ordered anything else.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

8. For the past, almost a decade the benefit flowing from I.D. Sharma (supra) has been known to all employees who are identically placed. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to make a special case of the present beneficiaries of the impugned order, one which has all along been accepted by the Department concerned that the view prevailing so far has been incorrect.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 12. In view of the aforesaid, ex facie, the court is of the view that the petitioners' conduct is objectionable. The court is inclined to impose costs. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would refrain from doing so, at this stage. The petition is frivolous and the same is accordingly dismissed, along with pending application.”

5. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore states that no discriminatory treatment can be given qua the applicant.

6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averment made in the counter affidavit. She relies upon the fact that the Assured Career Progress Scheme was introduced 09.08.1999 by the Government to mitigate hardship in cam acute stagnation either in a cadre or in an isolated post decided to grant two financial up-gradation in a period of years of service from the date of initial appointment.

7. She further states that from the record of the service book of these applicants, it is noted that they were initially appointed to the post of Compositor Gr-II in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 (5th CPC). Thereafter, they were appointed by absorption on transfer basis to the post of Key Board Operator (Key Board Operator later on re-designated as D.T.P. Operator) in the Scale of 4500-7000 (5th CPC) and their pay was fixed under FR 22(C), the prov