JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, petitioners Union of India and others are challenging the judgment dated 12.09.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 97/2004 filed by respondent No. 1, whereby, the Tribunal passed the following order ; "In view of the above discussion, this O.A. is allowed Impugned order, Annexure A-l, is quashed and set aside Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of financial up-gradation to the applicant under ACP Scheme in terms of the observations made above, by adjusting the benefits already granted to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, original applicant filed the O.A. stating therein that he was initially appointed on the post of Librarian Gr.-III in the pay-scale of Rs. 335-570 in the Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan with effect from 01.08.1979. He further qualified selection as direct recruit to the post of Librarian Gr-II in the pay-scale of Rs. 450-770 vide order dated 23.02.1983. 3. As per facts narrated in the original application, respondent No. 1 joined the Central Administrative Tribunal on the post of Junior Librarian with effect from 29.07.1988 on deputation basis from the Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan and, at that time, he was drawing his pay for the post of Librarian Grade-I I in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 of the State Government. After joining in the Central Administrative Tribunal by the respondent-applicant, the parent department of the respondent-applicant revised the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to 1400-2600 in respect of all the Librarians Grade-II and pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was abolished. The pay-scale of Junior Librarian in the Central Administrative Tribunal was also Rs. 1400-2600 which was, subsequently, revised to pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as per recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission. 4. Case of the respondent-applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that his parent department framed a scheme to remove stagnation in respect of the employees of the Education Department and, for the said purpose, a notification was issued on 25.01.1992, whereby, next financial up-gradation in the name of selection grade to its employees upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service was granted. Since the applicant had completed 9 years of service, he became entitled for the first selection grade of Rs. 1640-2900 (Revised Pay-Scale Rs. 5500-9000); but, in view of the fact that the applicant was already drawing pay at he stage of Rs. 1760/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600, only the minimum of the pay-scale was changed from 1400 to 1640 without granting any financial benefit to the applicant. 5. Respondent-applicant was absorbed in the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 16.09.1992 with effect from 29.07.1992 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600, however, benefit of protection of pay in terms of F.R. 22(l)(a)(2) was allowed to him by treating his pay in excess to the admissible grade of Rs. 1400-2600 as personal pay to be adjusted in future increments; but, no benefit of up gradation was given to the applicant in real terms. 6. The Central Government also floated a scheme known as Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme), providing for grant of financial up-gradation to the Central Government employees upon completion of 12 and 24 years of service in case of persons facing stagnation. Therefore, as per the respondent-applicant, he became entitled to the ACP Scheme in 1995 itself because no up gradation was allowed to the applicant since his initial appointment with effect from 01.03.1983 in the parent department. 7. The respondent-original applicant filed a representation on 10.02.2000 for granting benefit of financial up gradation but vide communication dated 11.02.2000, Annex.-7, the petitioner department rejected his claim on the ground that he had already been allowed selection grade. Respondent-original applicant again submitted a representation on 28.02.2000 denying the fact that he has been granted any selection grade and clarified that lie had been granted the benefit of pay protection only which does not constitute any financial benefit. Further, it is submitted that after implementation of the ACP Scheme for the Central Government employees again a representation was made on 28.02.2000; but, vide communication dated 07.09.2001, he was informed that in case of persons appointed initially on deputation basis followed by absorption from the State Government, the service rendered in the State Government is not countable for the purpose of ACP benefit. While observing the above fact, the claim of the original applicant-respondent was rejected in view of O.M. Dated 10.02.2000, read with Clarification No. 36 of O.M. Dated 18.07.2001, which provides for counting of past service as regular service as well as past promotion in the earlier post for computing regular service for the purpose of ACP in the new hierarchy. 8. Before the Tribunal, respondent-original applicant invited attention towards judgment of the Supreme Court, in which, it was provided that for the purpose of time-bound promotion service, if any, in any department can be counted for the purpose of computing length of service. But, he has been denied the benefit of such service rendered under the Government of Rajasthan for the purpose of ACP benefit. 9. The petitioner department contested the claim of the respondent on the ground that the department of Personal & Training has issued Memorandum dated 02.05.2004 for the purpose of removing doubt, in which, as per para 43, it has clearly been stated that ACP scheme is applicable to the Central Government civilian employees and only regular service rendered after regular appointment in the Central Government post is to be counted, therefore, the service rendered in autonomous bodies, State Government, etc. is not to be counted for the purpose of counting regular service for the grant of financial up-gradation. Correspondingly, promotions earned in these bodies prior to the absorptions on the Central Government post are also to be ignored. It is also clarified that earlier clarification issued on the doubt regarding service rendered in any organisation in the same grade is only in relation to the past service rendered in civilian post in the Central Government. Therefore, it is pleaded by the petitioner department that the original applicant is not entitled for counting his past services rendered as an employee of the State Government towards regular service for grant of the ACP benefit. 10. Learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, finally adjudicated the matter and allowed the original application while quashing the impugned order Annex.- A and directed the respondents (before the Tribunal) to grant financial benefit under the ACP Scheme by adjusting the benefits already granted to him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully perused the entire record of the case. 12. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully perused the entire record of the case. 12. As per pleadings of the case, it is abundantly clear that the respondent-original applicant was initially appointed in the State Government as Librarian Grade-Ill and, later on, he was selected on a higher post of Librarian Grade-II and was provided appointment on 23.02.1983. It is also obvious from the facts pleaded in the matter that the respondent-original applicant joined the Central Administrative Tribunal on 29.07.1988 on deputation basis from the State Government and, later on, he was permanently absorbed on 29.07.1992 while granting him benefit of pay protection in terms of F.R. 22 (l)(a)(2). It is also crystal clear from the facts that at the time of absorption his pay was protected in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and, till his absorption, no benefit of selection grade which was made available to the State Government employees, was accorded to the respondent-original applicant after completion of 9 years of service while working on deputation basis till 29.07.1992 though he had completed 9 years of service on 23.02.1992 because his initial appointment on the post of Librarian Grade-II was made on 23.02.1983. 13. After absorption of the respondent-original applicant in the Central Administrative Tribunal in the month of July 1992 when ACP Scheme was promulgated in respect of the Central Government employees, then, obviously the applicant made a representation for granting the benefit of ACP Scheme while claiming that he became entitled for first up-gradation after completion of 12 years of service because his initial appointment was made on 23.02.1983; but, the respondents rejected his claim on the ground that as per clarification issued his service rendered in the State Government are not required to be counted for the purpose of counting regular service for claiming the ACP scheme benefit. 14. 14. Learned Tribunal while considering the judgment of the Principal Bench of the CAT in the case of Sunil Kumar & Others v. Union of India, Original Application No. 1854/03, decided on 31.12.2003 , held that the department stand is not correct because the applicant's case is on better footing than the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) inasmuch as applicant in the present case was initially taken on deputation and, subsequently, he was absorbed in the Central Administrative Tribunal from his parent department in the State Government, therefore, his case is covered under the clarification given in O.M. dated 10.02.2000 against point No. 4 which is very clear. We have also perused the clarification which reads thus : "If a Government servant has been appointed to another post in the same pay scale, either as a direct recruit or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer basis), it should not make any difference for the purpose of ACP so long as he is in the same pay scale." 15. We have examined the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In our opinion, the denial of the petitioner department for calculating the services rendered by the application in the State Government for the purpose of calculating regular service after absorption for the grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme is not in consonance with the provisions of law. If the Union of India decided to count the services rendered by those employees who were working in autonomous bodies or organisation and were subsequently declared surplus as Central Government employees, then, how this benefit can be denied to the applicant who was admittedly working as regular employee in the State Government prior to jointing the Central Government on deputation and, thereafter, upon absorption. Learned Tribunal considered the case on Sunil Kumar & Others (supra), in which, it was held that the services rendered by the surplus employees of the autonomous bodies or organisation on absorption by the Central Government shall be counted, then, the case of the respondent-original applicant is certainly on a better footing because he was absorbed as regular employee while he was already working on deputation basis. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while giving the finding that the services rendered by the applicant in the State Government shall be counted for the purpose of granting him benefit under the ACP Scheme. 16. It is also worthwhile to observe that the finding given by the Tribunal is based upon sound reasons and upon the fact that class of employees who were working in autonomous bodies and organizations were granted the benefit of the ACP Scheme while counting their past services after absorption as Central Government employees, then, such benefit cannot be denied to the applicant and no benefit of up-gradation which was allowed to the Stale Government employees was accorded to the original applicant on the ground that he was subsequently absorbed in the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, in our opinion, the respondent-original applicant is very much entitled for the grant of financial up-gradation benefit under the ACP Scheme after calculating his service with effect from 23.02.1983 because he was permanently absorbed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1992 and, till today, he has not been allowed the financial up-gradation even though judgment has been rendered by the Tribunal in his favour. 17. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere in this matter because the finding of the Tribunal is based upon sound reasoning after considering the Government clarification and earlier judgment rendered by the Principal Bench of the CAT in the case of Sunil Kumar & Others (supra). 18. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner department is directed to grant the benefit of financial up-gradation to the respondent-original applicant as per order of the learned Tribunal within three months from today. No order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******