Year,Scale,Desig.,"Promotion/
Upgradation","Time period
from Date of
Recruitment","Office Order
No./Date",Remarks
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1983,"330-
560",JAA,Appointment,-,-,Appointment
1986,"1200-
2040",JAA,"Pay Fixation
in 4th CPC",-,-,"Fixation in 4th
PC
1987,"1400-
2600",AA,"Promotion
from JAA
(1200-2040)
to AA (1400-
2600)",Four years,"Office order
No. 227 dt.
21.11.1987","1st promotion
w.e.f.
01.04.1987
against
vacancies
which arose as
result of
restructuring
as per
provisions of
RBE No.
222/97 dated
27.08.1987 and
RBE No.
158/87 dt.
18.06.1987
2008,"6500-
10500",AA,"Upgradation
from AA
(5500-9000
erstwhile
1400-2600) to
AA (Scale
6500-10500)
w.e.f.
08.07.2007",24 years,"Office Order
No. 19 dt.
09.06.2018","2nd
upgradation
given w.e.f.
08.07.2007
under ACP
(RBE No.
233/99 dated
01.10.1999)
after 24 years
of service after
date of
appointment
vide office
order No. 19
dated
09.06.2008 (As
they had
already earned
one promotion,
only 2nd
upgradation
was due
2014,"PB-II
Pay
Scale
Rs.
9300-
34800
(GP
5400)",AA,"Upgradation
from AA
(Grade Pay
4800
erstwhile
Scale 6500-
10500) to AA
(PB-II Pay
Scale Rs.
9300- 34800
(GP 5400)
w.e.f.
08.07.2013",30 years,"Office Order
No. 2 dt.
30.01.2014","3rd
upgradation
given w.e.f.
08.07.2013
under MACP
(RBE No.
101/2009 dated
10.06.2009
(after 30 years
of service after
date of
appointment
vide order No.
2 dated
30.01.2014 (As
they had
already earned
one promotion
& one
Financial
upgradation,
only 3rd
upgradation
was due under
MACPS).
upgradation was given to the applicant w.e.f. 08.07.2013 vide Office Order No. 2 dated 30.01.2014. Barring denying the same, the applicant does not",,,,,,
give clarification why this should not be considered 3rd MACP of the applicant as per eligibility. Hence, the contention of the applicant in the rejoinder",,,,,,
is bland, unsubstantiated and un-clear. Hence, we come to the conclusion that what the authorities have stated in the counter-cum-compliance",,,,,,
affidavit, is substantial truth that the applicant has got one regular promotion in the year 1987 and one upgradation under ACP Scheme in the year",,,,,,
2008 and another upgradation under new MACP Scheme in the year 2013, hence, it is clear that in terms of the order of the Hon’ble High Court",,,,,,
dated 05.05.2022, wherein it was observed that “having heard learned counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, we hereby provide that in",,,,,,
case the opposite parties are granted the benefit of ACP pursuant to the judgment impugned here in this writ petition from the due dates computing,,,,,,
their requisite period of service from the date of up-gradation and, accordingly, the first ACP on completion of 10 years, second on completion of 20",,,,,,
years and third on completion of 30 years of service as per Rules, the learned Tribunal subject to the outcome of this writ petition may treat it to be the",,,,,,
substantial compliance of the judgment passed by the Tribunalâ€, and as per the facts placed before us, we have no ground to conclude otherwise than",,,,,,
that the applicant had been granted three upgradations as was envisaged under the MACP Scheme and subject to the outcome of the writ petition.,,,,,,
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any flaw in the statement of the respondents’ department contention that",,,,,,
substantial compliance of the judgment passed by this Tribunal has been made and as such, the contempt proceedings are liable to be closed.",,,,,,
Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed. The notices are discharged. All associated pending MAs stand disposed off.",,,,,,
