Judicially affirmed ACP benefits cannot be unilaterally withdrawn based on subsequent coordinate bench decisions.

The applicants, belonging to the subordinate engineering cadre of All India Radio and Doordarshan (EAs, SEAs, and AEs), were granted the 1st financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 8000–13500.

This benefit was originally granted following several judicial interventions, most notably O.A. No. 514/2002 (Patna Bench), which was upheld by the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court.

However, the respondents subsequently issued a Show Cause Notice on 06.07.2016 and subsequent orders on 23.05.2017 to withdraw the benefit.

The respondents justified the withdrawal based on a subsequent contradictory decision in O.A. No. 173/2009, where the Tribunal held that the posts were not merged and the hierarchy did not entitle them to the Rs. 8000–13500 scale.

1. Whether the respondents could arbitrarily withdraw ACP benefits that were granted pursuant to judicial orders that had attained finality.

2. Whether a subsequent decision in a separate matter (O.A. No. 173/2009) could be used to retrospectively review and reverse benefits granted to the applicants.

3. Whether the withdrawal of benefits complied with the proper procedure, including recommendations by a Screening Committee.

The court applied the Doctrine of Finality and Judicial Discipline, emphasizing that a decision affirmed by the Apex Court must be respected.

It relied on the Doctrine of Ratio Decidendi as clarified in UOI v. Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd., distinguishing binding principles from obiter dicta.

The court also invoked the Doctrine of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’, preventing a party from challenging a status it had previously accepted.

Finally, it followed the precedent in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, which holds that reduction in pay and recovery after substantial time is punitive and violates principles of Natural Justice.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the issues had attained finality at the Supreme Court level via the O.A. 514/2002 litigation, the respondents cannot re-agitate the matter.

The court noted that the respondents’ reliance on O.A. 173/2009 was misplaced because that judgment was a judgment in personam and could not retrospectively override the rights of the current applicants.

The Tribunal found that the withdrawal was procedurally flawed; while the initial grant was recommended by a Screening Committee, the withdrawal was an executive act without fresh Committee recommendations, rendering the Show Cause Notice an empty formality.

The court also highlighted that the respondents failed to establish the nexus or applicability of the 1999 Office Order to justify the pay reduction.

The court held that the respondents must restore the 1st ACP benefit in the pay scale of Rs. 8000–13500 with all consequential benefits and refund any recoveries effected from the applicants within a period of three months.