THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP Nos.16031 of 2008 & 15653 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) Since the subject matter involved in these two writ petitions is same, they are clubbed together and being disposed of by this common order. Both these writ petitions are filed by the Secretary, Defence, Production & Supplies, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, and two other officers against the common order dated 7-11-2007 passed in OA Nos.212 of 2006 and 213 of 2006. 2. The applicants-respondents herein filed the above said OAs to set aside the order dated 17-3-2006 passed by the 2nd petitioner- Director, Directorate of Quality Assurance (Naval), West Block No.5, RK Puram, New Delhi, by declaring the same as being arbitrary, illegal and void and consequently to direct the petitioners herein to allow the assured career promotions to the applicants and for other reliefs. 3. The facts stated are:-The applicants-respondents herein are said to be working in the office of the 3rd petitioner. While so the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Expenditure) vide a memorandum OM No.F5 (59-EIII/82) has decided to revise the scales of pay of draughtsman grade-III, II & I in the office/department of the Government of India, other than the Central Public Works Department, provided their recruitment qualifications are similar to those prescribed in case of Draughtsman in Central Public Works Department. Another notification dated 9-10-1994 was issued by the Government extending the revised pay scale of draughtsman of CPWD to other departments of Government irrespective of their recruitment qualifications. It is stated that in September 1995, Draughtsman cadre of DGQA was accorded financial upgradation as well as higher designations at par with those of CPWD vide MOD letter No.1(6)/94/D(Civ-I), dated 15 September, 1995 and all the applicants in this two OAs were also extended with the benefit of OM dated 15-09-1995. 4. It is stated that the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DOPT) vide its OM dated 09-08-1999 issued orders for Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) for Central Government Employees and under the said schemes two financial upgradations in the entire government service career of an employee are to be counted against regular promotions and this was made applicable only if, no regular promotions during the prescribed 12th and 24th years have been availed by an employee and if an employee has already got one promotion, he was qualified for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme and in case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, then no benefit under the ACP scheme shall accrue to him. It is further stated that a clarification was sought from the DOPT and the DOPT clarified in July 2000 that the upgradation in question would not tantamount to a promotion and therefore individuals will be eligible for ACP scheme based on its own conditions. 5. It is stated that pursuant to the clarifications issued by the DOPT, all the applicants/respondents herein were included in the list of individuals who were granted ACP upgradation. It is stated that as certain cases were returned unsanctioned by audit authorities stating that as per the DOPT clarification upgradation and pay-scales granted on the basis of completion of certain specified length of service was to be treated as promotion and offset against entitlement of ACP upgradation. To this, the petitioners herein went for re-clarification of the matter with DOPT who in turn clarified that there is a distinction between higher scales granted in CPWD based on the qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of CPWD and those granted in Ministry of Defence vide their letter dated 15-09-1995 which is based on qualifying service. It was further stated that benefits granted based on prescribed length of service is to be treated as promotion and suitably offset against the ACP entitlements whereas the higher pay scale granted in CPWD is based on the qualifications and therefore is not to be treated as promotion. 6. It is further stated that when the matter was taken up by the Ministry of Defence, they clarified that since the individuals have been placed in the higher pay-scales on completion of a certain length of service in terms of letter dated 15th September, 1995 issued by the Ministry of Defence, their ACP benefits are to be suitably offset and accordingly the Ministry of Defence ordered to cancel all such ACP upgradations. It is further stated that the issue was examined once again by the DOPT and the DOPT has clarified that since the placements of drawing staff in higher appointment and pay scales have been given on completion of certain length of service in terms of Ministry of Defence letter dated 15 September, 1995, they are not eligible for ACP benefits treating their placement in the higher pay scales as promotion. But since the Ministry of Defence ordered to cancel the ACP upgradations as a follow up action, the second petitioner-The Director of Quality Assurance (Naval) by the impugned order cancelled the ACP upgradations granted to all draftsmen. Questioning the said order the above noted OAs were filed by the applicants/respondents herein. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners - authorities and also learned counsel for the applicants – respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. 8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicants-respondents herein that a similar set of applicants were also granted ACP upgradations in terms of official memorandum dated 15.09.1995 issued by the Ministry of Defence, were sought to be withdrawn as is done in the case of the applicants in these OA’s, the applicants therein approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in OA.No.124 of 2004 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench held that the ACP upgradations granted cannot be withdrawn, as the same cannot be treated as promotion and allowed the OA. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench was assailed before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay which upheld the view taken by the Tribunal. It is stated that the matter was further carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No.CC.5027 of 2007 and the same was dismissed confirming the view taken by the Tribunal. Inasmuch as the applicants/respondents herein are also similarly placed, we do not find any merits in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________​_​__ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ G. Chandraiah,J Dated: 11-7-2011 Nrg. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP Nos.16031 of 2008 & 15653 of 2008 ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) Dated: 11-7-2011 Nrg