IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: March 8, 2011 1. CWP No. 19225 of 2010 Union of India and others ...Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and another …Respondents 2. CWP No. 19227 of 2010 Union of India and others ...Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and another …Respondents 3. CWP No. 19255 of 2010 Union of India and others ...Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for the private respondent(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. Costs paid. 2. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 19225, 19227 and 19255 of 2010, which have been filed by the Union of India and its of- ficers against orders dated 19.1.2010 and 2.3.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), holding that the Original Applicant-private re- CWP Nos. 19225, 19227 & 19255 of 2010 spondent(s) were entitled to the grant of second ACP w.e.f. 9.8.1999 till the date of their retirement. The aforesaid relief has been granted on the basis of admission made by the petitioners to the effect that the Original Applicant-private respondents were entitled to grant of second ACP w.e.f. 9.8.1999. The only excuse put forward before the Tribunal was that there was confusion as to which authority would ini- tiate their pay fixation as they were working in the capacity of officer. After various discussions held in the office of RO CE WC Chandi- mandir/Chandigarh it was decided on 21.4.1999 in joint discussion that the matter of pay fixation of the Original Applicants would be ini- tiated by the CRO (O) Delhi. The Tribunal granted the benefit of sec- ond ACP w.e.f. 9.8.1999 as also awarded interest @ 6% on the ar- rears. 3. The only argument raised by Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to payment of interest at the rate of 6% on the arrears of pay from 9.8.1999 to 31.1.2006. The basic is- sue raised by Mr. Goyal is that relaxation of degree has been granted by letter dated 22.2.2007 (A-4) which suggests that for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer the requirement of degree has been relaxed. The argument seems to be that once the requirement of de- gree has been relaxed only then the Original Applicant-private re- spondents becomes entitled to the grant of second ACP and, there- fore, interest could have been paid only after the date of issuance of that letter i.e. 22.2.2007 (A-4). 4. The aforesaid argument raised by the petitioners does not have any basis because before the Tribunal it was admitted in cate- gorical terms that the original applicant-private respondents were en- titled to second ACP w.e.f. 9.8.1999 and the only dispute was with re- gard to initiation of pay fixation. Once the entitlement from 9.8.1999 2 CWP Nos. 19225, 19227 & 19255 of 2010 has been conceded then there is nothing wrong if the Tribunal has awarded interest from that date. There is, thus, no merit in these pe- titions and the same are accordingly dismissed. 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 8, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 3