JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/establishment in all these matters is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22/07/2016 delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar vide which Complaint (ULP) Nos.86/2013 to 95/2013 and 97/2013 to 99/2013 have been allowed. Complaint (ULP) Nos. 85/2013 and 96/2013 have been rejected. Consequentially, the benefits of the GR dated 08/06/1995 are granted to these succeeding complainants (Respondents herein). 3. The petitions have been filed only with regard to those complaints, which have been allowed by the Industrial Court. 4. In all these petitions, the respondents/workmen, who are identically placed, are all working as attendants with the petitioner department. None of them has passed the 8th standard examination with English as a main subject. 5. All these respondents had approached the Industrial Court claiming the benefits of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme, which was introduced by the GR dated 08/06/1995. Each of them is one stage below the post of a “Dresser” ClassIV in the Animal Husbandry Department. The Industrial Court allowed their complaints holding that they all are entitled to the promotional scale as there is no clause in the scheme prescribing eligibility to claim the higher scale. 6. Upon considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates and the vehement submissions of Mr.Barde on behalf of the respondents/employees, I find that the dispute which calls for adjudication is as to whether these respondents are entitled to claim the benefits of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme as per the GR dated 08/06/1995. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another Vs. Union of India and another, [ AIR 1999 SC 598 ], while dealing with the issue of time bound promotion and acquiring emoluments without actual promotions, has observed in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 as under : “11. However, the position in regard to 'timebound' promotions in different. Where there are a large number of employees in any department and where the employees are not likely to get their comparatively low-position in the seniority list, Government has found it necessary that, in order to remove frustration, the employees are to be given a higher grade in terms of employments while retaining them in the same category. This is what is generally known as the time bound promotion. This is what is generally known as the time bound promotion. Such a timebound promotion does not affect the normal seniority of those higher up. 12. If that be the true purpose of a timebound promotion which is meant (to) relieve frustration on account of stagnation, it cannot be said that the government wanted to deprive the appellants who were brought into the P & T Department in public interest of the benefit of a higher grade. The frustration on account of stagnation is a common factor not only of those already in the P & T Department but also of those who are administratively transferred by Government from the Rehabilitation Department to the P & T Department. The Government, while imposing an eligibility condition of 16 years service in the grade for being entitled to timebound promotion, is not intending to benefit only one section of employees in the category and deny it to another section of employees in the same category. The common factor for all these employees is that they have remained in the same grade for 16 years without promotions. The said period is a term of eligibility for obtaining a financial benefit of higher grade. 13. It the appellants are entitled to the timebound promotion by counting service prior to joining the P & T Department, the next question is whether treating them as eligible for timebound promotion will conflict with the condition imposed in their transfer order, namely that these will not count their service for seniority purposes in the P & T Department.” 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has therefore ruled that in such schemes, which are introduced taking into account that the employees are not likely to get their promotion in the near future because of their comparatively low position in the seniority list, higher grade in terms of emoluments are made available to such employees while retaining them in the same category. They are not actually promoted but are given higher pay scales as if like they have been promoted. 9. With regard to the newly introduced Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), the learned Division Bench of this Court, at its principal seat has delivered an order on 24/06/2016 in WP Nos.7062/2014 and group of matters (The State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Dattatraya Mehta and others) and has observed in paragraph No.10 as under : “10. 9. With regard to the newly introduced Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), the learned Division Bench of this Court, at its principal seat has delivered an order on 24/06/2016 in WP Nos.7062/2014 and group of matters (The State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Dattatraya Mehta and others) and has observed in paragraph No.10 as under : “10. One of the notorious features of Government service is that several employees, though eligible and ever willing to promoted, do not actually secure such promotions, sometimes, during the entire tenure of their service. This stagnation, naturally leads to frustration. The State has consequently adopted schemes for redressal of such situation arising out of lack of sufficient promotional avenues and the consequent stagnation. Broadly, such schemes to not contemplate actual promotions to the nexthigher post, but by way of consolation, award the payscale of the promotional posts, generally, upon an employees stagnating in a particular post for twelve years or twenty four years respectively. Such schemes, were earlier referred to as Time Bound Promotion Schemes and are now referred to as Assured Career Progression Schemes. The MACP Scheme, with which, we are presently concerned was formulated by the State Government vide G.R. Dated 1 April 2010. This G.R. Specifically states that the scheme will be applicable with retrospective effect, i.e. from 1 October 2006.” 10. Such time bound promotion or assured promotion or MACP schemes have thus been interpreted as being such schemes by which those employees who are otherwise eligible and willing to be promoted, are not successful in actually securing such promotions considering their level in the seniority list or on account of lack of sufficient promotional avenues, would be extended monetary benefits of the promotional post. In order to overcome stagnation in service, such schemes have been introduced by which, such employees are given pay scales of the promotional posts by way of a consolation without actually being promoted to the said post. 11. The communication by the Secretary of the Government, Agriculture and Cooperation Department dated 10/02/1983 is with regard to the “Dresser” Class-IV under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1982. Rule 2(2) reads as under : “1. These rules may be called the Dresser Class IV in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1982. 2. 11. The communication by the Secretary of the Government, Agriculture and Cooperation Department dated 10/02/1983 is with regard to the “Dresser” Class-IV under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1982. Rule 2(2) reads as under : “1. These rules may be called the Dresser Class IV in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1982. 2. For rule 2 of the Dresser Class IV in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (Recruitment) Rules, 1981, the following shall be substituted, namely : 1. ….................. “2 – Appointment to the post of Dresser in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry shall be made by promotion of a suitable person on the basis of seniority subject to fitness from amongst the persons holding the posts of Attendant in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry who have passed 8th Standard Examination of a Secondary School with English as one of the subjects.” By order of and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra.” 12. As such, there is no debate, much less any dispute, that a person who is to be held eligible for promotion to the post of dresser, should have passed his 8th standard examination of a secondary school with English as one of the subjects. None of these respondents herein have passed their 8th standard with English as a subject. 13. The entire case of the respondents hinges on the GR dated 08/06/1995 which has been brought to my notice. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have gone through the said GR. Clause 2 as well as sub clauses A to H (in Marathi v to ; ) read as under : xxx xxx xxx 14. Clause 2 would indicate that those employees who are otherwise not eligible to the higher posts, would be treated differently on the basis of the Annexure annexed to the said GR. However, clause 2( c ) would indicate that only those candidates would be eligible for the benefits of the time bound promotion scheme, if they are otherwise eligible ¼ik=rk] vgZrka] ifj{kk½ . Clause H ¼;½ indicates that the eligible employee, who has been given the promotional scale under this scheme without actually being promoted, would be considered subsequently for actual promotion (functional promotion) as and when the vacancy arises. 15. Clause H ¼;½ indicates that the eligible employee, who has been given the promotional scale under this scheme without actually being promoted, would be considered subsequently for actual promotion (functional promotion) as and when the vacancy arises. 15. In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner that these respondents would not be entitled for the promotional scale of a “Dresser” Class-IV, if they have not passed 8th standard examination with English subject, is sustainable. It is apparent from the impugned judgments that the Industrial Court has failed to apply its mind to clause 2, 2 ¼c½ and 2 ¼;½ of the GR dated 08/07/1995, in as much as, it appears from the impugned judgment that these aspects were not specifically brought to the notice of the Industrial Court. 16. Considering the above, as it is evident that these respondents were not eligible to be promoted as “Dressers” considering clause 2 ¼c½ and 2 ¼;½ , they cannot be held entitled for the promotional scale which accompanies the post of “Dresser” ClassIV. When these respondents, under clause 2 ¼;½ would not be eligible for being regularly promoted as and when the opportunity occurs, they cannot be held entitled for the promotional scale under clause 2 ¼c½ . Unless the employee is eligible for promotion as per the eligibility criteria, he cannot be held entitled for the promotional scale under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. 17. Mr.Barde submits that in WP Nos.10687/2014 to 10689/2014, this Court has directed the State Government to reconsider whether the 3 employees namely Babulal Tulshiram Nikam, Prabhat Pahadu Solanke and Madhukar Kondiram Nangote, are entitled for any benefits of the GR dated 08/06/1995. They have been protected as against recovery of the money, that has been erroneously paid to them. He, therefore, prays that this Court may refer the cases of these respondents to the State Government for consideration or permit the respondents to make representations considering the fact that they are also suffering frustration on account of stagnation in service. 18. Considering the above, all these petitions are allowed. The impugned judgments dated 22/07/2016, being perverse and erroneous, are quashed and set aside in all the above mentioned complaints. Complaint (ULP) Nos.86/2013 to 95/2013 and 97/2013 to 99/2013 stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. 19. 18. Considering the above, all these petitions are allowed. The impugned judgments dated 22/07/2016, being perverse and erroneous, are quashed and set aside in all the above mentioned complaints. Complaint (ULP) Nos.86/2013 to 95/2013 and 97/2013 to 99/2013 stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. 19. As the respondents desire to make representations to the State Government, in the event such representations are made, the State Government would be at liberty to deal with the same in accordance with their Government Resolution and policies.