Financial-upgradation claims arising before amendment must be assessed under the scheme then in force.

The petitioner, Company Secretary Grade-I in the Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (AIDC), completed ten years in that grade on 31 December 2012.

AIDC’s 2001 Service Linked Advancement Scheme (SLAS) provided eligible employees who stagnated because no vacancy or sanctioned higher post was available with a personal scale in the next higher pay scale, subject to the Scheme’s conditions and ceiling.

AIDC later modified the SLAS, effective 13 September 2013, to provide financial upgradation by the next higher Grade Pay under the revised pay structure.

On that date, it granted the petitioner Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600, rather than the higher personal scale she claimed under the original Scheme.

She challenged that decision and sought the pay corresponding to General Manager and creation of a personal post.

AIDC maintained, among other things, that she had no right to promotion or to a General Manager post in her cadre.

Under Clause A of the original SLAS, an employee with ten years of continuous, satisfactory service in the same grade, otherwise suitable for promotion but stagnating due to lack of a vacancy or sanctioned post, could be considered for the next higher scale as a personal scale, subject to the Scheme’s ceiling.

Clauses E and G required committee consideration and limited advancement under the Scheme; Clauses B, D and F distinguished personal-scale financial upgradation from regular promotion and prohibited the stagnation benefit from creating a post.

The 13 September 2013 modification operated “with immediate effect” and did not expressly apply retrospectively to claims arising earlier.

The MoU with the State restricted creation of posts and financially consequential service-condition changes outside the approved framework, but did not itself extinguish a claim under the existing SLAS.

The Court also considered the cited authorities on service benefits and financial-upgradation schemes, applying them in the context of the SLAS’s terms; it identified no separate statutory rule as determinative.

The petitioner completed the qualifying period on 31 December 2012, before the modified SLAS came into force.

The absence of a higher post was a circumstance expressly contemplated by the original Scheme, not a reason by itself to deny consideration.

AIDC’s order granted the petitioner a higher Grade Pay under the modified Scheme but did not show that her eligibility had been assessed under the original SLAS.

Nor could her prior regular promotions alone establish disqualification: the original Scheme limited advancements under that Scheme, requiring examination of the benefits she had actually received under it.

The Court therefore required consideration under the original Scheme, while making clear that a personal-scale benefit was distinct from promotion, General Manager status, or creation of a post.

AIDC must assess her eligibility under that Scheme as it stood on 31 December 2012 and, if she qualifies, grant the admissible personal-scale benefit, subject to the prescribed ceiling and approved pay structure, with consequential pay refixation and adjustment for the benefit already granted.

The exercise must be completed within three months of receipt of the judgment.

No direction was issued to create a post or grant regular promotion to General Manager.