THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.26454 of 2006 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 31.10.2006, passed in O.A.No.610 of 2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner, while working as Heavy Vehicle Driver, Sriharikota High Altitude Range, Sriharikota, Nellore District, was issued with a charge memo, dated 27.02.1981, on the ground of misconduct and after completion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority vide order, dated 15.07.1985, imposed on him the penalty of reducing the pay by three stages in the time scale of Rs.320-6-326-8-390-10-400 for a period of two years with effect from 01.08.1985 and also ordered that during the period of punishment, he would not earn increments on pay and on the expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing future increments and that the period of suspension and beyond the period of suspension from 09.02.1981 to 01.07.1981 shall be treated as ‘dies non’ for all purposes. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal and also review and the same were rejected vide orders, dated 02.12.1985 and 30.11.1986 respectively. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.722 of 1987 before the Tribunal, which in turn, allowed the same quashing the order, dated 15.07.1985, and holding that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitioner states that though in the year 1985, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered his name for promotion to the post of Senior Heavy Vehicle Driver and the result was kept in a sealed cover, his case was not considered for promotion. He filed O.A.No.883 of 1991 before the Tribunal challenging the proceedings, dated 15/16.03.1985, of the DPC alleging that the two prosecution witnesses in the disciplinary enquiry were among the members of the DPC. Thereupon, the Tribunal after considering the case has set aside the said proceedings and directed the authorities concerned to conduct review DPC as per rules, and reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Heavy Vehicle Driver. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents constituted review DPC and directed the petitioner to appear for the trade test, but he did not attend the same on the ground that he was under suspension. Ultimately, his case was recommended by the DPC conducted on 01.12.1996 and was promoted to the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver ‘B’ with effect from 24.02.1997 vide order, dated 27.04.1998. Seeking directions to the respondents for re-fixation of pay adopting the promotional ratio 3:1 seniority-cum-merit and for extension of the pay fixation on par with his senior No.2 driver (HVD) from 15.07.1985, the petitioner filed O.A.No.610 of 2005 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter stating that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.883 of 1991, the respondents have constituted a review DPC, eliminated the two Officers against whom the petitioner alleged the ground of bias, and directed the petitioner to appear for the DPC process on 19.08.1994, but he did not attend to it. It is further stated that consequent on restructuring of HVD cadre in June, 2001, the posts of HVD-A, B and C were created and during the currency of his tenure, the petitioner was selected and promoted to the post of HVD-B with effect from 24.02.1997. His case was also reviewed for the post of HVD-C, but he was not selected by the DPC. It is further stated that under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, on completion of 24 years of service, the petitioner was given 2nd ACP to the scale of Rs.4500-7000/- in the scale identical to HVD-C with effect from 09.08.1999 and he retired from service on 30.06.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also stated that in spite of their efforts to give acquaintance training to the petitioner to drive the vehicle, the petitioner has not attended to it as well as the DPC. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of trade test is waived in respect of those SCDs/LVDs/HVDs, who were in position as on 08.11.1996 and have resigned or died or have retired before implementation of the Official Memo, dated 27.06.2001 and they may be promoted with effect from 08.11.1996 with consequential benefits vide Office Memorandum, dated 20.09.2001, and that the petitioner was in service as on 08.11.1996, and therefore, he is entitled to refixation of pay on promotion to HVD C & D grades and ACP benefits thereafter. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that though several opportunities were given to the petitioner to attend to the trade test, he did not attend to it as well as the DPC. He further submitted that the case of petitioner was reviewed from time to time as per the rules, he was promoted to the post of HVD-B and he got the benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme and therefore, he is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 7. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that in pursuance of the order, dated 16.03.1994, in O.A.No.883 of 1991, the respondents vide letters, dated 12.08.1994 and 21.09.1994 directed the petitioner to appear for practical test and the training programme as proposed. In response to the same, the petitioner vide letter, dated 26.09.1994, intimated his inability to attend to the training programme on the ground that he does not possess a valid driving licence to drive the articulated vehicles. In the counter, the respondents stated that the Transport Commissioner and Ex- Officio Secretary to Government, Transport Roads & Buildings Department Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter, dated 20.02.1993, informed the petitioner that a separate licence is not necessary to drive a tractor-trailer if the driver possesses heavy goods vehicle driving licence, but the petitioner did not attend to the training. After four years of his retirement, the petitioner filed O.A.No.610 of 2005 for the reliefs specified supra, based on the office memorandum, dated 20.09.2001, as per which, the requirement of trade test be waived in respect of those SCDs/LVDs/HVDs, who were in position as on 08.11.1996 and have resigned or died or have retired before implementation of the Office Memorandum, dated 27.06.2001 and they may be promoted with effect from 08.11.1996 with consequential benefits provided they were otherwise eligible and are recommended for promotion. Since the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner by conducting a review DPC and practical training, to which he did not attend, and promoted him to the post of HVD’B’ and he also got the benefit under ACP Scheme, he cannot claim for refixation of pay on par with his senior No.2 driver (HVD) four years after his retirement i.e., 30.06.2001. He did not appear for the trade test and also he did not attend to the training though several opportunities were given to him. Further, in the impugned order, as regards the office memorandum, dated 20.09.2001, there is neither any ground urged by the petitioner nor discussion by the Tribunal. Therefore, we find no merit in this writ petition warranting interference in the order impugned. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:02.02. 2011 sj