CWP No. 2203 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.2203 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 9 .3.2010 Daulat Singh Saini and others ... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal ,Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the respondents 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 22.4.2008 (P.4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 603 Pb. 2006. The claim of the petitioners for grant of stepping up of their pay on the ground that persons junior to them working on the post of Junior Accountant have been drawing more pay than them. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the petitioners were initially recruited as Lower Division Clerk and they were later on promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). The post of UDC was lateron redesignated as Junior Accountant. The petitioners as well as respondents were further promoted as Senior Accountants. The directly recruited Junior Accountants were granted the benefit of four increments on account of passing of Departmental Confirmatory Test which resulted into grant of higher pay scale. On promotion they were further placed in higher pay scale under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The CWP No. 2203 of 2009 2 petitioners were not required to qualify the Departmental Confirmatory Test nor infact they had qualified. Accordingly the benefit of four increments granted to the respondents on passing of the test is purely personal. The Tribunal, therefore, held that on that post the pay of the petitioners cannot be stepped up. The claim of the petitioners for grant of ACP has also been declined on the ground that the petitioners did not fulfill the basic condition of the ACP Scheme because the petitioners had already enjoyed two promotions and the ACP Scheme is not available to those who have been given two promotions whereas persons junior to the petitioners had earned only one promotion because they were direct recruits on the post of Junior Accountant. Accordingly, the claim made by the petitioners was rejected by the Tribunal by placing reliance on various orders passed by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and find that the view taken by the Tribunal is unexceptional and deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 9.3.2010 Judge okg