Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5822

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Sushila Sharma – Appellant
Versus
N.C.T. of Delhi – Respondent
OA No.1113/2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Sharma
For the Respondents: H.A. Khan

The grant of a senior scale is a placement on a personal basis and does not constitute a functional promotion to a post carrying greater responsibilities; as such, it does not attract the pay fixation benefits prescribed under FR 22(1)(a)(i) for promotions.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Fundamental Rules - FR 22(1)(a)(i) and FR 22(a)(2) - Pay fixation - Applicant sought re-fixation of pay under FR 22(1)(a)(i) upon grant of senior scale and benefit of one increment - Tribunal held that FR 22(1)(a)(i) applies only to promotion/appointment to posts with higher duties and responsibilities - Grant of senior scale does not equate to functional promotion - Clarified that ACP/MACP schemes are distinct from senior scale rules - Claim held untenable and barred by limitation. (Paras 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired Vice-Principal, was granted senior scale on 11.05.1999. She sought pay fixation with one increment under FR 22(1)(a)(i), arguing that since the senior scale was treated as financial upgradation, it should attract the same fixation benefits as ACP/MACP. Her claim was rejected by the respondents, leading to the filing of the present OA.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that senior scale placement does not constitute a functional promotion required to trigger FR 22(1)(a)(i). The Court also agreed that the claim was time-barred, as the applicant approached the Tribunal nearly 16 years after the initial pay fixation.

Issues: Whether an employee granted a senior scale is entitled to pay fixation benefits under FR 22(1)(a)(i) and whether the claim is barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Financial upgradation under a senior scale is a personal placement and not a promotion to a post of greater responsibility; therefore, the specific rules for promotional pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(i) are inapplicable.

Result: OA dismissed.

Table of Content
1. senior scale placement is not a promotional appointment under fr 22(1)(a)(i). (Para 6)

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-

Present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 (Annex.A/1), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents in not fixing the pay of the applicant under FR22(1)(a)(1) w.e.f. 11.5.1999 by way of granting one increment, in the same manner as while fixing the pay at the time of granting financial upgradation under ACP/MACP scheme is totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, to pass an order directing the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant at the stage of Rs. 8000/- in the scale of Rs. 7500-12000 w.e.f 11.5.1999 under FR22(1)(a)(1), with all the consequential benefits including the difference of pay and allowances and revision of retirement benefits with arrears.

(ii) Interest @ 12% from May 2010 as the circular dated 29-04-10 was issued treating the senior scale as the ACP/MACP, and pay of the applicant on grant of senior scale should have been fixed automatically in terms of the above circular.

(iii) Heavy penalty on the respondents for not considering the case of the applicant as per order dated 08-04-2016 Honorable CAT and compensation to the applicant.

(iv) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants with the costs of litigation.”

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 The applicant was initially appointed to the post of PGT (English) in the Directorate of Education, Government of India, w.e.f. 11.05.1987. After completion of 12 years of service, she was granted the senior scale of pay of Rs. 7500–12000 w.e.f. 11.05.1999, and her pay was fixed at Rs. 7,550/-.

2.2 The Government of India introduced financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and subsequently the MACP Scheme from 01.09.2008. The applicant sought financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, however, the same was rejected on 30.03.2009 with the remark “already granted senior scale.” The respondents also issued a circular dated 29.04.2010, wherein it was stated that the senior scale/selection scale granted or awarded to any teacher during the course of his/her career shall be counted as financial upgradation for the purpose of granting further financial benefits under the ACP/MACP Schemes.

2.3 Being aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 1336/2016 before this Tribunal, seeking correction in the fixation of her pay from the date she was granted the senior scale, i.e., 11.05.1999. This Tribunal, vide order dated 08.04.2016, directed the respondents to consider the pending representation of the applicant and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months. The respondents did not comply with the direction of this Tribunal within the stipulated time. Consequently, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 596/2016. The respondents thereafter filed a compliance affidavit along with the impugned order dated 04.01.2017, whereby the claim of the applicant for re-fixation of her pay was rejected. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

2.4 Notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed their counter reply. Learned counsel for applicant has also filed rejoinder thereto.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant:-

4.1 Referring to the pleadings in the OA, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completion of 12 years of service, stating that the respondents have already granted senior scale to her. It is the claim of the applicant that, as the respondents have treated the grant of senior scale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5822

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALChhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)Sushila Sharma – AppellantVersusN.C.T. of Delhi – RespondentOA No.1113/2017

The grant of a senior scale is a placement on a personal basis and does not constitute a functional promotion to a post carrying greater responsibilities; as such, it does not attract the pay fixation benefits prescribed under FR 22(1)(a)(i) for promotions.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Sushila Sharma – Appellant
Versus
N.C.T. of Delhi – Respondent
OA No.1113/2017