O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

The brief factual matrix of the case, as enumerated by the learned counsel for the applicants, is that the present applicants joined the respondent organization as Instrument Mechanic and Telecommunication Mechanic on different dates between 20.07.1987 and 12.09.1988. The respondents implemented the ACP Scheme as notified by the Government of India with effect from 09.08.1999 for giving two financial upgradations i.e. after completion of 12/24 years of service, however, subject to clearing of a supervisory test. The applicants passed the supervisory test on various dates in the years from July 2000 to May 2002. However, the respondents did not grant the ACP to the applicants from the date of their being eligible after completion of 12 years and they were granted 1st financial upgradation from the date of passing of the supervisory test. The applicants made several requests to grant ACP from due date. As the respondents did not consider their informal requests, the applicants issued a legal notice dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure A-1). The respondents have not responded to the said legal notice till date. Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred the present OA, seeking the following relief(s) :-

“(i) To declare the action of respondents in not granting 1st & 2nd Financial Upgradation to the applicants from the date of completion of 12/ 20 years of service under ACP/MACP Scheme as highly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and issue appropriate directions to grant 1st & 2nd Financial Upgradation to the applicants from the date of 12/ 20 years of regular service with all arrears of pay and 10%interest.

(ii) to declare the action of the respondents in insisting upon passing of supervisory test to grant 1st & 2nd Financial Upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme as illegal and arbitrary and pass necessary directions to grant Financial Upgradation without insisting upon aforesaid condition.

(iii) to allow the OA with cost.

(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in terms of Clause 6 of the ACP Scheme, the applicants were required to pass a departmental examination prescribed by the respondents in order to be eligible for the next promotion. However, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants passed the requisite supervisory test conducted in the year 2001 in their first attempt after the introduction of the ACP Scheme. However, the respondents have denied the grant of ACP benefits to the present applicants stating that, as a special case, only those employees who qualified the trade/supervisory test in their first attempt after 09.08.1999 may be allowed the benefit of ACP with effect from 09.08.1999, and not from the date of passing the trade/supervisory test.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the respondents themselves were responsible for delaying the meeting of the screening committee as well as supervisory test, which could not have been insisted upon as the same is against the object of providing two financial upgradations to remove the stagnation. Secondly, when the upgradation is given to avoid financial loss in the absence of any promotion, the upgradation looses its relevance, if the employee continues to hold the previous scale. The upgradation should have been granted from the date of completion of 12 years and not from the date of passing of the supervisory test. The test which could have been held in 1999 was held in 2000 and the candidates who qualified the said test were given financial upgradation from 09.08.1999 i.e. from the date when ACP came into force, however, the applicants were granted ACP from the date of passing of test.

Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.4879/2014 d