Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur) in Original Application No.855 of 2018 whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of senior scale/time-bound pay scale on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in October, 1992 and thereafter was promoted to the next higher post. However, owing to compelling personal circumstances, she could not join the promotional post. It is contended that under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme formulated by the Government of India, an employee who completes 12 years and 24 years of satisfactory service is entitled to financial upgradation. The petitioner has rendered more than 24 years of unblemished service and no punishment or adverse remark has ever been recorded against her. It is further submitted that denial of the benefit of senior scale/time-bound pay scale solely on the ground that the petitioner did not join the promotional post is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that other similarly situated employees, despite having declined promotions, were granted the benefit of senior scale and, therefore, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had lastly, foregone her promotion in the year 2010 and, therefore, in terms of the ACP Scheme formulated by the respondents, the respondent department ought to have considered her case for grant of benefits envisaged thereunder. Learned Administrative Tribunal failed to appreciate the petitioner's case in its correct perspective and rejected the Original Application without properly considering the relevant facts as pleaded by the petitioner. The impugned order, being unsustainable in law be set aside and respondents be directed to grant benefit of higher pay scale/senior pay scale in favour of petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal and submits that the petitioner was afforded repeated opportunities of promotion during the years 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2010, but she declined to avail the same on each occasion. It is submitted that as per the clarification issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti vide letter dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure R-2) in which it is clarified that “where a teacher is offered financial upgradation through promotion before completion of 12 years of service and refuses such promotion, he/she shall not be entitled to grant of senior scale on completion of 12 years”. It is further contended that the plea of parity raised by the petitioner is misconceived. Teachers posted in the Hyderabad Region were granted the benefit prior to the issuance of the clarification. However, no teacher who had refused promotion was considered for grant of the Senior Scale. Subsequently, pursuant to the clarification dated 28.04.2010, even the benefit that had been extended to a teacher posted at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Surajpur, was withdrawn vide order dated 18.12.2015.. Therefore, no case of discrimination is made out. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’bl