$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16.01.2024 + W.P.(C) 9184/2017 UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Archana Gaur & Ms.Ridhima Gaur, Advs.

versus ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.P. Sethi, Adv CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A. No.3684/2013. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. preferred by the respondent by directing the petitioners to extend the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) to the respondent w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as against 21.09.2010, vide which the said benefit was extended to him by the petitioners as per the order dated 19.07.2012.

2. The respondent, who was the applicant before the learned Tribunal, joined the Central Water Commission (CWC) as a Research Assistant on 16.11.1972 and was working with the Central Soil & Material Research Station (CSMRS), which was in 1981 delinked from the CWC and placed directly under the Ministry of Water Resources. Based on his seniority and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9184/2017 Page 1 of 5 performance, the respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officer on 15.05.1987, and thereafter to the post of Research Officer (later re-designated as Scientist ‘B’) on 21.09.2000. Even though the respondent thereafter became eligible for being considered for promotion to Scientist ‘C’, he could not be considered for the said post due to the pendency of a writ petition before this Court pertaining to the procedure and parameters to be followed for promotion to the post of Scientist ‘C’. Consequently, the respondent superannuated on 31.10.2011 without being considered for promotion.

3. Even though the respondent was deprived of the opportunity to be considered for promotion, the petitioners, in 2012, vide their order dated 19.07.2012 extended the benefit of the 3^rd MACP to the respondent w.e.f. 21.09.2010. Since the respondent had joined service on 16.11.1972 and had consequently completed thirty years of continuous service on 16.11.2002, he approached the petitioners by way of representations for antedating the date of grant of 3^rd MACP to him to 01.09.2008, i.e., the date when the MACP scheme was introduced. Upon his representations being rejected, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of an OA which came to be allowed vide the impugned order.

4. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal has, while directing the petitioner to extend the benefit of the MACP scheme to the respondent w.e.f. 01.09.2008, failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not be faulted for the delay in considering the case of the respondent for grant of MACP. She submits that the learned Tribunal had itself noted that the matter regarding the procedure and parameters for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9184/2017 Page 2 of 5 promotion to the post of Scientist ‘C’ remained pending before this Court from 2005 to 2010, during which period, the petitioners were restrained from carrying out promotions to the said post. She, therefore, contends that the impugned order directing the petitioner to grant benefits of the 3^rd MACP to the respondent from a date prior to 2010 is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order, by urging that the respondent had joined service on 16.11.1972 and had therefore, completed almost 36 years of service by the time MACP scheme was introduced on 01.09.2008. He submits that as per the MACP scheme, an employee is eligible for grant of benefits of 3^rd MACP on completion of 30 years of ser