CWP No. 20480 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 20480 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 6 .7 .2011 Union of India and others ...Petitioners Versus . Central Administrative Tribunal and another .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Ms Naveen Chopra , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for respondent no.2. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Union of India and its officers is directed against order dated 3.9.2009 (P.1) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') accepting the prayer made by the original applicant- respondent and granted him the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1999 (for brevity 'the ACP'). The Tribunal has granted the original applicant- respondent the benefit of second ACP on the expiry of 24 years after 1974. It has come on record that he was promoted from the post of Valveman. He was given the designation of Pipe Fitter while working on the post of Valveman. It is clear from the facts that pay scale of both the posts i.e. Valveman and Pipe Fitter are the same i.e. Rs. 210-4-226-4-250-5-290 with increment of Rs. 4 or Rs. 5/-. He was further designated as Highly Skilled Category (HS category) with higher pay scale. The pay scale of Pipe Fitter was revised to Rs. 3050-5490 CWP No. 20480 of 2010 (O&M) 2 with increment of Rs. 75/- Rs. 80/- whereas in HS category the revised pay scale is Rs. 4000-6000 with increment of Rs. 100/-. Accordingly the pay as Pipe Fitter was to be fixed at Rs. 3950 and in the HS category it came to be fixed at Rs. 4000/-. The Tribunal has found that the original applicant- respondent was not even paid a single increment when the so called promotion was given to him from the post of Valveman to that of Pipe Fitter. Therefore, it could not treated as upgradation and the denial of ACP on that ground has not been appreciated. In such a situation an employees becomes eligible for ACP because the basic object of ACP was to compensate an employee for stagnation in a particular category for a long time. The Tribunal has concluded in the last but one para that the so called promotion cannot be termed as promotion whereas in the HS category upgradation for the purposes of ACP would be considered as promotion. It has therefore been regarded as first promotion. The original applicant- respondent has consequently been found entitled to the grant of 2nd ACP after completion of 24 years stagnation. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner- Union of India and the original applicant- respondent. 3. The findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to promotion from the post of Valveman to the post of Pipe Fitter do not call for any interference because the promotion connotes advancement in careeer financially as well as hierarchy. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab 1994(5) SCC 396 wherein it has been held that promotion under the service jurisprudence means advancement in rank, grade or both. It is always a step towards advancement to a higher position, CWP No. 20480 of 2010 (O&M) 3 grade or honour. Likewise in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni 1996 (1) SLR 1, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has again laid down that the concept of promotion not only means promotion to a higher position but also means an employee for advancement to higher position grade or honour. 4. Accordingly we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal would not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. We further find that the grant of ACP after completion of 24 years of service would also not suffer from any violation of Rules. Even otherwise no jurisdictional error has been found which may warrant admission of the petition. Accordingly the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 6.7 .2011 Judge okg