Past Service Counted for Senior Scale Must Be Applied for Higher Selection Grades Under CAS.

The applicant was appointed as a Lecturer (Computer Application) in the Department of Training and Technical Education (DTTE) on 12.04.2001

He was granted Senior Scale in 2006, which was later preponed to 01.11.2002 after the respondents officially counted his past service rendered at a previous institution from 01.11.1996 to 31.03.2001

While the respondents initially withdrew the order counting his past service in 2016, this withdrawal was set aside by the Tribunal in OA No. 2534/2015, restoring his right to have that service counted

Despite this, the respondents granted him Selection Grade-I and II based on his 2001 appointment date rather than his preponed seniority date

The applicant sought preponement of these grades to 2007 and 2010 respectively

1. Whether the past service rendered by the applicant (1996–2001), already recognized for Senior Scale preponement, must also be counted for the grant of Selection Grade-I and Selection Grade-II under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)

2. Whether a "break in service" can be a valid ground for denying such benefits after the past service has already been accepted and acted upon by the respondents in prior orders

The court primarily applied the AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999, which governs the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and the counting of past service for seniority and financial upgrades

It relied on the principle of parity and stare decisis regarding similarly situated employees, specifically citing the Tribunal’s own precedents in Anil Kumar v. GNCT of Delhi (OA No. 2575/2025) and Rashmi Panwar v. GNCT of Delhi (OA No. 3789/2024), which held that once past service is recognized for one stage of CAS (Senior Scale), it must be consistently applied to subsequent stages (Selection Grades)

The Tribunal reasoned that since the respondents had already issued an order on 21.05.2013 counting the applicant’s past service and preponing his Senior Scale, the logic for that recognition must extend to Selection Grades I and II

Regarding the respondents' objection that the matter was sub judice in the High Court, the Tribunal noted that the High Court had specifically declined to stay the operation of the underlying orders

The Tribunal dismissed the "break in service" argument, noting that the respondents had waived this objection when they originally preponed the Senior Scale in 2013

Finally, the Tribunal found the case facts identical to Anil Kumar and Rashmi Panwar, concluding that denying the applicant the same relief would result in unnecessary and repetitive litigation for similarly situated public servants

The respondents were directed to: (i) grant Selection Grade-I effective from 01.11.2007 and Selection Grade-II effective from 01.11.2010; and (ii) release all consequential benefits, including arrears and pay differences, within eight weeks

The holding affirms that once past service is accepted for the Career Advancement Scheme, it cannot be selectively ignored for subsequent higher-grade benefits