SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2426

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
Ajay Arela – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.200/01047/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Shri K C Ghildiyal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri H C Singh
For the Respondents:None for Respondent nos. 1 & 2, Shri Amardeep Gupta, proxy counsel for Shri Hemant Shrivastava, for respondent no. 3

ACP financial upgradation follows existing post hierarchy on eligibility date; retrospective recruitment rules cannot deny vested rights without justification, ensuring parity with similarly placed employees.

Headnote:(A) Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme - Financial upgradation - Library staff hierarchy - Employees entitled to next higher pay scale in existing hierarchy (Rs.8000-13500 pre-revised) on completion of 12 years service w.e.f. 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 - New recruitment rules with retrospective effect from 31.03.2005 providing lower scale (Rs.6500-10500) cannot deny benefit as retrospective application lacks explanation and violates vested rights - ACP governed by separate scheme instructions, not cadre rules - Delhi High Court ruling on clarification No.56 of DoPT OM dated 18.07.2001 applicable to similarly placed employees. (Paras 2, 7, 8, 10)

(B) Retrospective effect to rules - General rule against unless expressly permitted - Must explain reasons, ensure no prejudice to vested rights - Statutory rules cannot retrospectively discriminate or violate constitutional rights. (Paras 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
Applicants working as Senior Library and Information Assistants became eligible for first ACP after 12 years service on specified dates. Granted lower pay scale despite hierarchy entitling higher scale; immediate seniors received higher scale following ministry directions and court ruling. Representations rejected citing new retrospective recruitment rules and ACP clarification.

Findings of Court:
Order denying higher scale set aside; respondents directed to grant ACP in Rs.8000-13500 (pre-revised) w.e.f. eligibility dates, fix pay without arrears within 90 days.

Issues: Applicability of existing hierarchy vs new retrospective rules for ACP; validity of retrospective rules prejudicially affecting vested rights; parity with similarly placed employees.

Ratio Decidendi: ACP upgradation based on hierarchy and pay scales on eligibility date per scheme para 7; retrospective rules invalid without justification and cannot override vested rights or scheme policy; applicants similarly situated to those granted benefit post court clarification.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of acp pay scale claim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicants and respondents argue acp hierarchy and rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court notes iifm recommendation and acp scheme separation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. retrospective rules require justification per mha instructions. (Para 9)
5. delhi hc: acp based on existing hierarchy, not clarifications. (Para 10)
6. apex court: retrospective rules cannot violate vested rights. (Para 11)
7. quash order, grant acp pay scale without arrears. (Para 12)

O R D E R

By Mallika Arya, AM:

Through this Original Application, the applicants are seeking quashment of the order dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure A/14) passed by Respondent no. 3. They are seeking direction to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to the applicants w.e.f. 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 respectively and the difference of salary along with interest.

2. Brielfy stating, the facts of the case are that the applicants were working on the post of Senior Library and Information Assistant in the Respondent department. The applicants became due for first ACP on completion of 12 years of service with effect from 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 respectively. On the date of the eligibility of the applicants for grant of first ACP, the following hierarchy of post and pay scales existed in the office of Respondent No.3:-

1. Librarian 10,000-15200/-

2. Assistant Librarian 8000-13500/-

3. Senior Library & Information Assistant 5500-9000/ -

The applicants were entitled to receive the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- (Pre revised) w.e.f. 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 respectively. However, they were granted the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- (Pre-revised) as first ACP with effect from 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 respectively vide order dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure A/1). By the same order, two of the immediate seniors of the applicants namely Shri A K Sinha and Dinesh Karheria were granted first ACP w.e.f. 31.03.2005. Shri A.K. Sinha represented against the grant of first ACP in pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- (Pre-revised) and claimed the ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- (Pre revised) on the basis of the existing hierarchy of the post and corresponding pay scale applicable to the post. On representation of Shri A K Sinha, Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure A/2) directed respondent No.3 to allow the benefit of financial upgradation to him to the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- (Pre revised) in terms of para 7 of conditions for grant of benefit under the ACP scheme. On receipt of the order dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure A/2) from Respondent No.1, Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 25.06.2008 (Annexure A/3) justified the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- (Pre revised) given to Shri A K Sinha on the ground that as per point No. 56 of DoPT, O.M. dated 18.07.2001, the next pay scale provided to the employees of the Government of India ie. Rs.6500-10500/- (Pre revised) has been rightly given to him. The contention raised by Respondent No.3 vide their letter dated 25.06.2008 (Annexure A/3) has not been accepted by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure A/4) on the ground that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in Writ petition (Civil) No.9224/2006 dated 07.08.2006, regarding clarification as per point No. 56 of DoPT, O.M. dated 18/07/2001 is not applicable to Shri A K Sinha. Accordingly, not only Shri A K sinha, Shri N S Jadon and Shri Dinesh Karheria have also been granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- (Pre revised) with effect from the due date vide order dated 28.04.2009 (Annexure A/5). The applicants were granted ACP vide order dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure A/1) along with Shri A K Sinha and Shri Dinesh Karheria. However, instead of pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- (Pre revised) they have been granted the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- (Pre revised). In view of the orders issued by Respondent No. 1 on 10.06.2008 and 12.03.2009 (Annexure A/4), the applicants should have been given the pay scale of Rs. 800

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top