CWP No. 3413 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3413 CAT of 2010 Date of decision 25 .2.2010 Bawa Ram ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Amit Jain ,Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition is directed against order dated 8.7.2009 (P8) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') upholding the grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 3200- 4900. The petitioner is working on the post of Liftman which is an isolated post. He is not even matriculate and could simply operate the lift. According to the Assured Career Progression Scheme the step up is to be given in the next higher scale as per the existing hierarchy. The petitioner was admittedly working in the scale of Rs. 3050-4500 in the existing hierarchy. The next higher pay scale in the respondent department i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices is in the scale of Rs. 3200-4900 as per annexure II to the gazette notification dated 30.9.1997. However, the claim of the petitioner is that in other departments Lift Operators have been given the Ist ACP in the scale of 4000-6000. Accordingly, the Tribunal has CWP No. 3413 of 2010 2 refused to grant him parity because the Lift Operators or Wireman of other departments are governed by different set of statutory rules which have got nothing to do with the cadre of Lift Operators in the respondent department. It is well settled that merely on the basis of nomenclature of the post parity in the pay scale cannot be claimed. The number of posts in the cadre, avenues of promotion and nature of duties would play vital role in deciding grant of pay scale and likewise the proficiency step up. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 25.2.2010 Judge okg