Movement from unskilled to semi-skilled post is not a promotion for ACP purposes.

The applicant, an employee of the Engine Factory, Avadi, was initially appointed as a Labourer (Unskilled/Labourer ‘B’). After passing a trade test, he moved to the post of Press Operator (Semi-Skilled) with effect from 2 May 1980, and was subsequently promoted to the skilled and highly skilled grades. He claimed that his movement from Labourer ‘B’ to Press Operator was not a promotion for the purposes of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, particularly because Labourer ‘B’ was not the feeder cadre for Press Operator. On that basis, he sought second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000 with effect from 7 March 2002 and consequential third financial upgradation under the Modified ACP (MACP) Scheme in Grade Pay ₹4,600 with effect from 1 September 2008

In an earlier proceeding, OA No. 1268/2011, the Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s claim by examining whether similarly situated employees had received the claimed ACP/MACP benefits. Following that direction, the applicant furnished details of employees at Ordnance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur, including employees who had received second ACP despite career movements similar to his. The respondents nevertheless rejected his claim by order dated 8 April 2015, holding that the applicant had received two promotions before completing 24 years of service

1. Whether the applicant’s movement from Labourer ‘B’/Unskilled to Press Operator/Semi-Skilled after passing a trade test constituted a promotion that had to be counted for determining eligibility for second ACP upgradation?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to second ACP in the pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000 with effect from 7 March 2002 and consequential third MACP in Grade Pay ₹4,600 with effect from 1 September 2008?

3. Whether the respondents’ rejection order dated 8 April 2015 was consistent with the applicable DoPT and Ordnance Factory Board clarifications and the Tribunal’s earlier directions?

The Tribunal applied the ACP Scheme, under which financial upgradation is determined by counting admissible promotions in the existing service hierarchy, and the MACP Scheme governing subsequent financial progression.

It relied on the DoPT OM No. 35034/1/97-Estt.(D)(Vol.IV) dated 10 February 2000, which provides that where posts are merged or rationalised, an earlier promotion between grades subsequently placed in the same pay scale is to be ignored for ACP purposes so that the employee is not disadvantaged vis-à-vis a fresh entrant.

The Tribunal also relied on Ordnance Factory Board clarifications dated 13 July 2011 and 22 September 2011, which stated that movement from Unskilled to Semi-Skilled, following merger of the grades, should not be treated as a promotion for financial-upgradation purposes.

The Tribunal further relied on the reasoning of the Allahabad Bench in OA No. 960/2012, which held that placement in a higher trade after selection or a trade test, particularly where the lower post was not a feeder post, could not be treated as a promotion for ACP purposes.

The respondents treated the applicant’s movement from Labourer ‘B’ to Press Operator as his first promotion and his subsequent movement to the skilled/highly skilled grade as his second promotion. However, the Tribunal found that Labourer ‘B’ was not the feeder cadre for Press Operator and that the applicant entered the latter post after passing a trade test. Applying the DoPT OM and OFB clarifications, the Tribunal held that the movement from Unskilled to Semi-Skilled was not to be counted as a promotion for ACP purposes.

This conclusion was reinforced by the respondents’ own records showing that similarly situated employees, including Moti Ram Barde and Keshav Rao Pansey, had received second ACP notwithstanding comparable career movements. The respondents’ distinction between those employees and the applicant was therefore unsustainable, particularly because the earlier order had required equal treatment of similarly situated employees. Once the Labourer-to-Press Operator movement was excluded, the applicant had only one countable promotion within the relevant period and was eligible for second ACP.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant second ACP with effect from 7 March 2002 in the pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000 and to revise his third MACP with effect from 1 September 2008 to Grade Pay ₹4,600, together with all consequential benefits. The exercise was directed to be completed within three months from receipt of the order, and the OA was allowed without costs.