W. P. (C.) No. 399 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.399/2010 % Date of Decision: 20.01.2010 Union of India and others …. Petitioners Through Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate. Versus Sh.B.M.Mallappa …. Respondent Through Mr.L.R.Khatana, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioners have challenged the order dated 1st May, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2004 of 2008 titled Sh.B.M.Mallappa v. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Culture, whereby the Original Application of the petitioner seeking second stage financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.14300 – 18300 from the date the petitioner had completed 24 years of service with all consequential arrears was allowed. W. P. (C.) No. 399 of 2010 Page 2 of 4 The petitioners had rejected the demand of the respondent for grant of ACP second stage financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.14,300-18,300 by order dated 9th September, 2008 on the basis of alleged clarification No.56 of the ACP Scheme which order was challenged by the respondent. The Tribunal noticed that similar and identical issue was raised before the Tribunal in another Original Application titled S.C. Bhalla v. Union of India and another decided on 12th April, 2005 holding that a clarification would not supersede the main Scheme of ACP and therefore, allowed the Application for grant of financial upgradation in the scale. The decision dated 12th April, 2005 was challenged by the petitioners in the High Court of Delhi, however, the order was upheld in W.P. (C.) No.14708-09/2006 by order dated 3rd September, 2007. In view of the aforementioned and relying on the order of the Tribunal in case of S.C. Bhalla (supra), it was held that the respondent shall also be entitled for similar benefit. Before the Tribunal, the grant of second stage financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the decision in S.C. Bhalla (supra), which was affirmed by the High Court, was also challenged before the Apex Court and the matter was sub judice. The Tribunal noticed that the Apex W. P. (C.) No. 399 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 Court had not stayed the order of the Tribunal and the High court in S.C. Bhalla (supra) and consequently had allowed the original application of the respondent. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Mr.Khatana, learned counsel for the respondent, who has appeared on advance notice, has contended that the matter of S.C. Bhalla (supra) has also been decided by the Supreme Court in CA No.6122 of 2005 by order dated 20th October, 2009 holding that the respondents before the Apex Court were entitled to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme circulated vide Office Memorandum dated 9th August, 1999 and that the clarification issued on February 10, 2000 is not applicable to them and that the respondents were also entitled for the consequential direction given for grant/restoration of financial benefits in terms of the Assured Career Progression Scheme as it did not suffer from any legal infirmity and consequently the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court not to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in S.C. Bhalla (supra). Consequently, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 1st May, 2009 granting second stage financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.14,300-18,300/- from the date the petitioner had completed 24 years of service relying W. P. (C.) No. 399 of 2010 Page 4 of 4 on S.C. Bhalla v. Union of India and another decided on 12th April, 2005. There are no grounds to interfere in the facts and circumstances with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. JANUARY 20, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k/Dev’