THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10238 of 2010. ORDER: (Per GR,J) The petitioner assails the order dt. 10.3.2008 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No. 817 of 2005. The O.A. was filed against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was in respect of an order dt. 20.4.2005 of the Director of Census Operations and the consequential order dt. 8.8.2005. The applicant was appointed temporarily as Chowkidar by an order dt. 8.10.1982 in the office of the Director of Census Operations, Hyderabad, an office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs, a Department of the Government of India. The petitioner was regularized in the category of Chowkidar in 1996. However, the respondents had pleaded in the O.A. that the petitioner was regularized with effect from 3.9.1992. The petitioner had a grievance with regard to Assured Career Progression (for short ‘ACP’) i.e. with respect to the date from which he was entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP scheme. It would appear that the petitioner was granted the first financial upgradation under ACP with effect from 9.8.1999 reckoning the ad hoc service rendered by him in the grade with effect from 8.10.1982. Thereafter, by an order dt. 20.4.2005 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was informed that his financial upgradation was cancelled and a separate order dt. 26.4.2005 was issued refixing his scale. The petitioner represented to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration which was however rejected by a communication dt. 8.8.2005. On the same date i.e. on 8.8.2005 another order was issued refixing the pay of the petitioner with effect from 1.10.2004 under F.R. 22 (1) (a) (i). The Tribunal found that as the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar purely on ad hoc basis as is evident from the letter dt. 31.8.1982, he could not have been considered for the benefits under ACP with effect from the initial date of appointment. As the financial upgradation benefit is available only after completion of the specified years of regular service and since the petitioner’s regularization was subsequent to 8.10.1982, he was entitled for the financial upgradation under ACP Scheme from the date of regular appointment and not from the date on which the petitioner was appointed initially on ad hoc basis, rightly observed the Tribunal and upheld the orders challenged before it. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that since by an order dt. 3.9.1992 the service of the petitioner was regularized and the ad hoc service rendered by him was allowed to be counted for the purpose of seniority in the grade, he should be considered as having been regularized with effect from the initial recruitment as temporary Chowkidar and that the Tribunal failed to notice or deal with this aspect while upholding the impugned orders passed by the respondents. We do not propose to go into this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on merits, as the O.A. filed by the petitioner itself was not maintainable before the Tribunal. Admittedly and demonstrably, the petitioner is an employee of the Government of India and working in the Director of Census Operations, State of A.P., Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Where the petitioner claims any right or has a grievance against the State, the State as a juristic entity has to be impleaded as a party. Every order in the case of the petitioner, whether the order of initial appointment on temporary basis on 8.10.1982; the order of regularization dt. 3.9.1992; the erroneous grant of ACP benefit on 24.12.1999; or the re- fixation of the petitioner’s pay on recognition of the error by the order dt. 12.3.2003 is passed by and under the authority of the Government of India by particular State actors or State agencies. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Registrar General India Census Operations or the Director of Census Operations, Hyderabad is an independent entity in law without an umbilical nexus to and an agency or an instrumentality of the Government of India. For any claim or grievance against the State (Union of India), the petitioner is required to implead the Government of India as a party. As the petitioner failed to implead the Government of India as a party in the O.A., the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the same. In the circumstances, the order dt. 10.3.2008 of the Tribunal is inoperative against the Government of India. We accordingly and on the basis above, set aside the Judgement dt. 10.3.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 817 of 2005. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law against the substantive grievance, which led him to approach the Tribunal by way of O.A.No. 817 of 2005. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ________________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 28.06.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10238 of 2010. Dt. 28.06.2010.