Upgradation on rationalisation of cadre, if based on minimum service/training, counts as promotion for ACP/MACP and prevents further financial upgradation beyond scheme's limits.

ORDER

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

Under assail is the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (hereinafter called as 'CAT') in O.A.No.310/00417/2014.

2. Union of India preferred the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the respondent was granted the benefit of three upgradations i.e., one promotion and two upgradations and thus, she is not entitled to get any further upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme. The CAT mainly proceeded on the ground that the upgradation granted to the respondent, while recategorising the post of Librarian as Librarian and Information Officer, not granted promotion and the said re-categorisation cannot be construed as upgradation/promotion and therefore, the respondent is entitled for upgradation under ACP/MACP scheme.

3. Mr.Srinivasamurthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would contend that the case of K.V.Ratanakar ( K.V.Ratanakar vs. Union of India O.A.No.1308/2007 dt.16.01.2008 CAT, Delhi) relied on by the respondent before the CAT is factually distinguishable, since no promotion has been granted to the said Ratanakar's case. However, in the present case, the respondent was promoted from the post of Librarian to Senior Librarian on 10.07.1989. Thus, the ratio applied in Ratnakar's case has been erroneously adopted by the CAT while allowing the claim of the respondent.

4. Mr.Srinivasamurthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 19.05.2016 in the case of Pratibha Prashar vs. Union of India , 2016 DHC 4106-DB. In the said case, the Union of India had issued several clarifications pertaining to ACP Scheme in Office Memorandum dated 18.07.2001 which would clarify that if the existing incumbents in the pre-rationalised grades do not possess the qualification/experience are considered for placement in the corresponding grades scale, only after completion of considerable length of service in the existing grades, then such a placement will be taken as promotion/upgradation.

5. In the present case, the respondent was granted upgradation on completion of 8 years of service and she was fully eligible for upgradation with effect from 10.7.1997. When the respondent was fully qualified, then the date of upgradation is to be construed as promotion for all purposes and therefore, the said upgradation would also to be treated as an upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme.

6. In the case of Ramanand and others vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of NCTL of Delhi , [2020(6) SCR 19], the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled as follows:

15. Learned counsel in the aforesaid context, while turning to the factual matrix of the present case, submitted that there are three aspects which are material in the present case:

(i) prequalification of minimum of 5 years of service;

(ii) higher financial emoluments;

(iii) rigours of a specialised training.

These make a candidate eligible. It was, thus, a submission that if all these three are considered together, there can be no doubt that the present case is one which should be considered as the promotion for the purpose of ACP Scheme.Scheme.

16. We have examined the aforesaid contention and we are of the view that the benefits of ACP Scheme cannot be held applicable to the appellants and consequently the High Court was right in interfering with the order of CAT.

17. The reasons for coming to this conclusion are based on the principles set out in BSNL case [ BSNL v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy , (2011) 9 SCC 510 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 496] . No doubt, sometimes there is a fine distinction which arises in such cases, but, a holistic view has to be taken considering the factual matrix of each case. The consequence of reorganisation of the cadre resulted in not only a mere re-description of the post but also a much higher pay scale being granted to the appellants based on an element of selection criteria. We say so as, at the threshold itself, there is a requirement of a minimum 5