JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vashathakumar, J. This writ petition is filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Defence and its officers questioning the order of Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Circuit Bench, Jammu), hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal" made in OA No.501-JK-2012 dated 15.04.2013. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondents upholding the entitlement of the respondents to the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- w.e.f. March, 2007, i.e. the date on which they completed 4 years service in the post of Senior Private Secretary. 2. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that they came to be promoted as Senior Private Secretaries on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee w.e.f. 13.03.2003 and promotions were granted by the competent authority mentioning it as adhoc, even though vacancies were available, due to non framing of the recruitment/service rules. The service Rules were framed only in the year 2006. After framing of the rules, namely, the Army Group 'B' (Senior Private Secretary and Private Secretary) Recruitment Rules, 2006, they were given regular promotion as Senior Private Secretary on 01.05.2007 and when grade pay of Rs. 5400/- was sought for, it was replied that the respondents would become eligible for grade pay of Rs. 5400/- only after completion of four years from the date of regular promotion i.e. in the year 2011. In other words the respondents were promoted in the category of Senior Private Secretary on adhoc basis on 13.03.2003 and the adhoc service cannot be counted for fixing the grade pay. The respondents having aggrieved filed O.A., which was allowed by stating that the respondents raised claim for grant of grade pay of Rs. 5400/- w.e.f. 13.03.2007 in terms of 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, which were implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the said claim was made earlier by filing another OA No.244-JK-2010, which was disposed of with liberty to the respondents to submit a representation to the official respondents/petitioners herein for regularization of adhoc period of promotion for the purpose of grant of time bound financial up-gradation. The said representation was rejected on 09.02.2012 and the same was challenged by contending that when respondents have put in four years' of service and raised claim for grant of grade pay of Rs. The said representation was rejected on 09.02.2012 and the same was challenged by contending that when respondents have put in four years' of service and raised claim for grant of grade pay of Rs. 5400/- which is outcome of the recommendations of the 6tn Central Pay Commission, rejecting the same stating that they have not rendered four years' regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- is not justified. 3. Taking note of the fact that the Rule making authority having refrained from imposing such a condition of four years of regular service in promotional post, insisting four years' regular promotion and ignoring the adhoc promotion cannot be sustained, the Tribunal allowed the application. 4. The same contentions are put before this Court while challenging the order of the Tribunal made in OA by contending that unless a person is promoted regularly in the pay scale of Rs. 4800/- and completed four years of service in regular promotion, he/she is not entitled to get further grade pay of Rs. 5400/-. 5. Similar Issue with regard to the grant of benefit of ACP scheme was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its decision reported as (2003) 8 SCC 714 (Union of India v. V.N. Bhat) wherein the Union of India questioned the order of the High Court, which in turn affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as of the High Court, ordering counting of adhoc/temporary service also for granting benefit of financial up-gradation under ACP Scheme. The said decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in WP No.24104 of 2011 by judgment dated 28.02.2014 wherein also the same issue was raised challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. 6. The principle laid down in the above cited decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court can be squarely applied for grant of grade pay because of the following reasons :- (i) The respondents were eligible for regular promotion in the year 2003 as vacancies of Senior Private Secretary were available. (ii) Non-framing of Rules was the cause for giving promotion on adhoc basis. (ii) Non-framing of Rules was the cause for giving promotion on adhoc basis. (iii) The promotion was granted pursuant to the decision of Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) in its Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2001, wherein it is stated that the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission contained in paragraphs 46.34 and 46.36 in respect of stenographers in the non-Secretariat Central Government offices have been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and it has been decided that all posts of Senior Personal Assistant in non-Secretariat Central Government offices should be re-designated as Private Secretary; number of posts to be upgraded as Senior Private Secretary shall be equal to the number of posts of the level of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent and above in non-Secretariat Central Government offices and the up-gradation of the existing incumbents of the post of Private Secretary (including the erstwhile posts of Senior Personal Assistant now re-designated as Private Secretary) to the posts of Senior Private Secretary shall be in accordance with the instructions contained in the Department of personnel and Training Office memorandum dated 04.02.1992 read with office memorandum.