C.W.P. No. 79 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 79 of 2011 Date of Decision 04.01.2011 Union of India and another -----Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal 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 petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The Union of India and its officers have challenged order dated 04.01.2010 (P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), holding that the original applicant-respondent was entitled for promotion to the post of Chargeman (electricity) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 or any other date as per his seniority and fitness in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. A direction has been issued that if the original applicant-respondent has been found fit as per Rules and in terms of policy dated 20.05.2003 then he be granted promotion with all consequential benefits towards the arrears of pay and allowance from the date of promotion upto 08.08.1999, as he has already been placed in the C.W.P. No. 79 of 2011 -2- pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. 2. The primary reliance for the aforesaid conclusion recorded by the Tribunal is on the policy dated 20.05.2003. In para 4(iii) of the policy, it has been postulated that the post of Master Craftsman (MCM) is not a part of hierarchy and therefore, placement in this grade shall not be treated as promotion for highly skilled grade either under normal promotion rules or under ACP Scheme. In para 4(iv), it is further provided that the post of Master Craftsman is to continue to be considered as highly skilled grade for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Chargeman-II (Rs. 5000-8000). The Tribunal has further found that the statutory rules continued to exist as also the post of Chargeman-II. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from para 13 of the judgment, which reads thus: “13. Considering the language used in the policy, Annexure A-1/1, it does not appear probable that the post of Craftsman II/Craftsman (elect) has been abolished and that can also not been done inasmuch as at least for the existing incumbents, as post, scale of which has been given to them under ACP Scheme @ Rs. 5000-8000, cannot be taken to have been abolished and it may be probably be done for new incumbents who joined after new scheme has come into force. The impugned C.W.P. No. 79 of 2011 -3- order, Annexure A-1 also does not show any light on the issue involved in the O.A. It is only mentioned that the post of Charge man elect. does not exist after new scheme came into force in 2003. In these circumstances, impugned order, Annexure A-1 cannot stand scrutiny of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, the applicant was given benefit under policy dated 20.05.2003 as MCM in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, this scale would not have been given to him under ACP scheme in absence of any specific order or amendment in the rules to abolish the post of Craftsman Elect and as such contention of the respondents cannot be accepted.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Union of India and its officers and found that there is no room for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the original applicant-respondent alongwith other was placed in position of Master Craftsman vide order dated 11.01.2005 w.e.f. 20.05.2003. He has further been granted higher scale of Rs. 5000-8000 under ACP Scheme w.e.f. 09.09.1999 after completion of 24 years of service vide order dated 05.07.2004. Therefore, once the petitioner has also accepted the C.W.P. No. 79 of 2011 -4- policy dated 20.05.2003, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the post of Master Craftsman continued to exist in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. There is no exception provided to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE January 04, 2011 Atul