Original Application No. 33 of 2013. Case: K. Abdulla Vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, The Secretary, The Executive Engineer and The Superintending Engineer. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 33 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Advocate for R1-4
JudgesA.K. Basheer, Member (J) and K. George Joseph, Member (Ad.)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateOctober 29, 2013
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


K. George Joseph, Member (Ad.)

  1. The applicant, a Head Draftsman in the office of the respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.10.2012 upon filing of a charge sheet against him by the CBI under various Sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and he is still under suspension. The respondent No. 3 had submitted a proposal for considering him for grant of financial upgradation from due date under the ACP/MACP Scheme. However, the same was returned by the respondent No. 4 vide Annexure A-1 order dated 24.10.2012 on the ground of pending disciplinary action. Aggrieved, he has filed this O.A. for quashing Annexure A-1 and for a direction to the respondents to grant him the second financial upgradation in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- with effect from 04.04.2007 under the ACP Scheme with all consequential benefits or in the alternative, the benefit under the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. The applicant contended that there is no disciplinary action pending against him. It is not even contemplated. The order of suspension dated 01.10.2012 is only because the trial is pending and not on account of any disciplinary action. He was not under a cloud either on 04.04.2007 when he became due for the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme or as on 01.09.2008, when he became due for the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Therefore, denial of consideration for grant of financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme and the consequent denial of the benefits arising therefrom, is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. The charge sheet against the applicant was filed by the CBI well after the above due date of 30.09.2009. In para 18 of the MACP Scheme, it is stated that in the matter of disciplinary/penalty proceedings, grant of benefit under the MACPS shall be subject to the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the instructions issued thereunder. The same shall be read in conjunction with para 7 therein, wherein it is provided that the cadre controlling authority shall constitute the first Screening Committee within a month from the date of issue of these instructions to consider the cases maturing upto 30.06.2009 for grant of benefits under the MACP Scheme.

  2. The respondents in the reply statement submitted that the applicant may be entitled for the financial upgradation under the MACPS with effect from 01.09.2008 since his first and second promoted...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT