ORDER : The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Union of India and two others, being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to the Tribunal’for short] in OA No.170/00388/2014 dated 25.10.2018. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent – employee was serving Kudremukh Iron Ore Co.Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as ‘KIOCL’for short], which is a Government of India enterprise and he was appointed as a Junior Trainee on 7.4.1992 and posted to work in the Mining Department. He was thereafter appointed as an Junior Operator-cum-Mechanic Grade-II in the Mining Department of the Company on 12.05.1994. He was promoted to the post of Junior Operator-cum-Mechanic Grade-I with effect from 2.11.1997. The respondent employee unfortunately met with an accident on 19.06.2001 which resulted in injury and he was given treatment by the company with effect from 19.06.2001 to 18.12.2002 in the Company’s Hospital and referral Hospital. He was declared medically fit on 19.12.2002 and was posted at the Pollution Control Department of the Company. 3. The respondent employee was thereafter transferred and posted to the Mining Department on 12.08.2003.As he was having some difficulty in the mining department, he requested vide his representation dated 11.10.2003 for transfer to the Pollution Control Department. Thereafter, he was again posted to Pollution Control Department on 22.07.2004. He reported at the Pollution Control Department of the Company on 30.7.2004. 4. In the year 2005, he preferred an application before the Workmen's’ Compensation Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, which was allowed and a sum of Rs.1,64,901/-was directed to be paid to the workman as compensation on account of the injury. The undisputed facts of the case would reveal that 15% disability was assessed in respect of the workman for loss of earning capacity., Thereafter, the workman requested the employer to grant him higher pay scale as the benefits were extended to his juniors and nothing was done in the matter. He kept on representing and finally the employer rejected the representation on 26.12.2012. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the representation, Original Application was preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the said Original Application has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal the present petition has been filed. 5. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal reads as under: "Heard. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the representation, Original Application was preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the said Original Application has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal the present petition has been filed. 5. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal reads as under: "Heard. The applicant suffered an injury on 19.06.2000 and under the Workman's Compensation Commissioner in Case No.WCA/NF/38/2005 he had been assessed with a disability of 15% and granted a compensation of Rs.71,000/-odd and apparently, on their own, the company had posted him to the Pollution Control Department for performing an alternate job. 2. Now the company would say vide Annexure-A11 that since the applicant is not fit to perform the regular job of Junior OCM as has been decided by their own Medical Board and having been given an alternate job in the Pollution Control Department the applicant is not eligible for regular promotion. In other words, functional incapacity of the applicant has been assessed as if not 100% at least more than 85% so as to bring it within the schedule. If it has been brought in into schedule as aforesaid, then the workman's compensation which ought to have been given to him under the same schedule ought to have been 100%. Since the Workman's Compensation Commissioner had acted on the inputs granted by the company also in adjudicating the disability as only 15%, the company cannot now turn around and say that the applicant had been fully incapacitated as it now appears that it is at their own motion that applicant had been given an alternate employment and not through his motion. 3. The applicant has taken an alternate contention also that under Section 47 of the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995 he cannot be discriminated against in matters of employment. Therefore, unless the disability had been assessed as 100% or within the frame of 85% to 100%, the denial of promotion to the applicant cannot be justified as the company cannot have two stands, i.e., before the Workman's Compensation Commissioner and before the administrative adjudicatory authorities. Both have to be same and similar. Therefore, unless the disability had been assessed as 100% or within the frame of 85% to 100%, the denial of promotion to the applicant cannot be justified as the company cannot have two stands, i.e., before the Workman's Compensation Commissioner and before the administrative adjudicatory authorities. Both have to be same and similar. Since the company had taken protection under the 15% clause of the disability found by the Commissioner then there is no reason to hold that the applicant is not eligible for promotion. Therefore if the applicant's juniors have been promoted and the applicant is also eligible for it as it is, then the applicant will be eligible for all the promotions cumulatively as also the financial benefits which go along with it. The OA is therefore allowed. A mandate is issued to the respondents to grant the benefits to the applicant in tune with the benefit granted to the next junior to the applicant in 2000. 4. The OA is thus allowed. No order as to costs". 6. Learned counsel for the Union of India has vehemently argued before this Court that the Tribunal is erred in allowing the application ignoring the fact that the claim of the workman was hopelessly barred by limitation. He placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Bhagat Ram reported in (1975) 1 SCC 155 and Judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Chaman Rana with Union of India and Others Vs. Gulshan Kumar Sharma reported in AIR 2018 SC 1478 . The learned counsel has also argued before this court that large number of juniors have been upgraded and at this juncture, the question of granting financial upgradation to the employee does not arise. He has stated that some of the juniors were granted upgradation in the year 2003 as the petitioner was not medically fit, he has not been granted Financial Upgradation. It is also been argued that he was not able to perform the normal job in the mining department and therefore, he was posted to Pollution Control Department in the same company. Therefore, he cannot compare himself with others in the matter of grant of Financial Upgradation. It is also been argued that he was not able to perform the normal job in the mining department and therefore, he was posted to Pollution Control Department in the same company. Therefore, he cannot compare himself with others in the matter of grant of Financial Upgradation. It is also been argued that Financial Upgradation or promotion are not time bound and they are not automatic and the employee in question has to fulfill the eligibility criteria besides completing qualifying period and therefore, the Tribunal has ordered granting promotion on par with the juniors. 7. Another ground was raised in the Writ Petition that the provisions of persons with disabilities (equal opportunity, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995, are not applicable as the said act applies only when a person is having 45% or more disability. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have referred the Act of 1995 while granting relief to the respondent. 8. Learned counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner was declared medically fit on 19.12.1992 and the relief has been granted ignoring the aforesaid facts. On the other hand, learned counsel for the employee vehemently argued before this Court that the respondent employee met with an accident on 19.6.2001 and he was under treatment and he was declared as medically fit on 19.12.2002. It was not a case of 100% disability, he has suffered only 15% disability and therefore, he was posted to Pollution Control Department on 19.12.2002. Later on he was thereafter transferred to Mining Department on 12.08.2003 and again as he was having difficulty to work in the mining department, he was transferred back to the Pollution Control Department on 22.07.2004. The learned counsel argued before this Court that the workman in question has been working with sincerity and devotion and no such provision of law debars him from grant of higher pay scale on account of 15% disability suffered by him. He has stated that he has filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation, Chikkamagaluru, claiming compensation on account of the disability (15%) and the employer was forced to pay Rs.1,64,901/-. The employer with an vindictive attitude has not granted upgradation. 9. He has stated that the Tribunal was justified in directing grant of Financial Upgradation to the respondent keeping in view the promotion policy for non executives which is on record as Annexure-A12 relating to KIOCL. The employer with an vindictive attitude has not granted upgradation. 9. He has stated that the Tribunal was justified in directing grant of Financial Upgradation to the respondent keeping in view the promotion policy for non executives which is on record as Annexure-A12 relating to KIOCL. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. In the present case, the undisputed fact reveals that on account of the accident which took place on 19.12.2001, the employee suffered injury and he was declared medically fit on 19.12.2002. The injury suffered by the employee is not an injury on account of which he was declared medically unfit or was medically boarded out. Though he was earlier working in the mining department, he was posted to Pollution Control Department in the Company. The Rules governing the field in respect of upgradation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the KIOCL as contained in clause 7.10 to 8.0 reads as under: "7.10. An employee eligible to be promoted should secure marks as shown below:- PROMOTION TO EXTENDED SCALES & WITHIN NORMAL LOP Appraisal of Max. Marks Qual. Marks 3 ½ years 60 30 5 years 100 40 6 years 120 50 7 years 140 60 Test for SC/ST) 50 30 (20 SERVICES LINKED MAX. Qualifying Marks Marks 180 90 Qualifying marks for appraisal will be subject to minimum of 10 marks in each year (Marking for Appraisal : Outstanding-20. Very Good-15, Good-10, Average=5, Poor=0). 7.11 An employee who has been deployed in a different job than the job for which he is employed, as a rehabilitation measure arising out of an accident while on duty or ill-health will be considered for promotion to the next higher grade, only on his being found medically fit for the higher post/scale. Medical reports in such cases will be obtained before DPCs are held. 7.12 CUT OFF DATE FOR PROMOTIONS The cut off date for eligibility for promotion/selection and length for service for posts upto N8/M3/M4 will be 30th April and 30th October of every year and promotions will be effective from 2nd May and November respectively. DPCs will be held once in a year during March-April for promotions to the above cut off dates. For promotions to supervisory cadre the cut off date for eligibility for selection and length of service will be 30th April every year and effective from 2nd May. DPCs will be held once in a year during March-April for promotions to the above cut off dates. For promotions to supervisory cadre the cut off date for eligibility for selection and length of service will be 30th April every year and effective from 2nd May. If due to any unforeseable circumstances, selection cannot be finalised and made effective on time as stipulated dates as above, selections shall be given notional effect from preceding 2nd May and 2nd November to ensure sanctity of 2nd May and 2nd November and no loss to concerned employees in terms of their qualifying service for next higher scales. 8.0 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE 8.1 Suitability of employees for promotion to the next higher grade will be assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Company, based on results of test/personal records. The committee will assign marks as stated in 7.10 above. 8.2 The Departmental Promotion Committee shall Consist of : (a) Head of the Department/Division in which the employee works: (b) Representative from allied Department/Division; (c) Representative from Finance & Accounts Department; (d) An Officer belonging to SC/ST minority category; (wherever necessary) (e) Representative from Personnel Department. 12. The criteria for grant of higher pay scale provides for minimum number of years of service and based upon the aforesaid criteria large number of juniors were granted Financial Upgradation. The petitioner before this Court KIOCL, while filing the return before the Central Administrative Tribunal has filed a chart which is Annexure-R-13 to the present Writ Petition at page No.219, which reflects all minute details in respect of respondent No.1 and other employees. The chart makes it very clear that the respondent No.1 was appointed on 17.1.1992 and he was granted first Financial Upgradation only on 2.11.2006 whereas all other juniors are granted upgradation with effect from 2.5.2003, they have been subsequently granted further up-gradation from 2.11.2006, 2.11.2007 and 2.5.2012 ignoring the claim of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has not been considered at all by the department even though the rules provide for consideration of all other eligible employees. The chart filed by the employer is also reproduced as under: NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE 1 2 3 4 5 6 SCALE CODE NARAYAN SINGH MALLAPPA RAJSHEKAR SANTOSH D'SOUZA RAMESH KUMAR BASAVARAJU B DT OF JOINING AS JR. TRAINEE 07.04.1992 9.5.1992 25.05.1992 25.05.1992 27.08.1992 27.08.1992 DT. The chart filed by the employer is also reproduced as under: NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE 1 2 3 4 5 6 SCALE CODE NARAYAN SINGH MALLAPPA RAJSHEKAR SANTOSH D'SOUZA RAMESH KUMAR BASAVARAJU B DT OF JOINING AS JR. TRAINEE 07.04.1992 9.5.1992 25.05.1992 25.05.1992 27.08.1992 27.08.1992 DT. OF APPOINTMENT IN THE REGULAR POST 07.04.1992 09.05.1994 25.05.1994 25.05.1994 27.08.1994 27.08.1994 SCALE OF PAY IN Rs. 1415-28- 1611-32- 1835/- 1415-28- 1611-32- 1835/- 1415-38- 1611-32- 1835/- 1415-38- 1611-32- 1835/- 1415-38- 1611-32- 1835/ 1415-38- 1611-32- 1835/- S3 DT.OF 1ST PROMOTION 02.11.1997 02.05.1998 02.05.1998 DESIGNATION JR.OCM-I JR.OCM-I JR.OCM-1 JR.OCM-I JR.MCH-I JR.MCH-I SCALE OF PAY IN Rs 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/ 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- S4 DATE OF ACCIDENT 19.06.2001 PAY SCALE HELD BY THE APPLICANT AND 5 OF HIS IMMEDIATE JUNIORS AT THAT POINT OF TIME 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/ 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/- 2245-58- 2651-65- 3106/ S4 DT. OF 2ND PROMOTION 02.11.2006 02.05.2003 02.05.2003 02.05.2003 02.05.2003 02.05.2003 SCALE OF PAY IN Rs. 4800-125- 6300-135- 8055/- 4240-105- 5500-115- 6995/- 4240-105- 5500-115- 6995/- 4240-105- 5500-115- 6995/- 4240-105- 5500-115- 6995/- 4240-105- 5500-115- 6995/ S5 DT.OF 3RD PROMOTION 02.11.2015 02.11.2006 02.11.2006 02.11.2006 02.11.2006 02.11.2006 SCALE OF PAY IN Rs. 10350-3%- 15750(S6) 5000-140- 6680-150- 8630/- 5000-140- 6680-150- 8630/- 5000-140- 6680-150- 8630/- 5000-140- 6680-150- 8630/- 5000-140- 6680-150- 8630/ S6 DATE OF 4TH PROMOTION - 02.11.2007 02.11.2007 02.11.2007 02.11.2007 02.11.2007 SCALE PAY IN Rs. - 5250-155- 7110-165- 9225/- 5250-155- 7110-165- 9225/- 5250-155- 7110-165- 9225/- 5250-155- 7110-165- 9225/- 5250-155- 7110-165- 9225/- S7 DT OF 5TH PROMOTION - 02.05.2012 02.05.2012 02.05.2012 02.05.2012 02.05.2012 SCALE PAY IN Rs. - 11000-3%- 16720/- 11000-3%- 16720/- 11000-3%- 16720/- 11000-3%- 16720/- 11000-3%- 16720/- S8 PRESENT SCALE OF PAY IN Rs. 10350-3%- 15750(S6) 11000-3%- 16720/- (S8) 11000-3%- 16720/-(S8) 11000-3%- 16720/- (S8 11000-3%- 16720/- (S8) 11000-3%- 16720/-(S8) 13. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the case of the respondent-employee was not considered at all. In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has certainly held that a person aggrieved on account of promotion of junior should approach the court atleast within six months or atleast an year of such promotion. This court, is not dealing with the case of promotion. In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has certainly held that a person aggrieved on account of promotion of junior should approach the court atleast within six months or atleast an year of such promotion. This court, is not dealing with the case of promotion. This court is dealing with the case of Financial Upgradation of employees in the KIOCL and denial of less pay every month is a recurring cause of action [See: M.R.Gupta vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1996 SC 669 ] and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Union of India is of no help. 14. Learned counsel has also placed reliance of the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India Vs. Chaman Rana (supra) and his contention is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has denied relief to the employee therein on the ground of delay and latches by holding that such orders directing belated promotions are bound to suffer serious administration and financial burden to the Government. 15. In the present case, this court is dealing with the issue of Financial Upgradation and this court is not dealing with the issue of seniority and promotion. The employee in question even after grant of Financial Upgradation, will be performing the same job and therefore, he is certainly entitled for backwages. The order of the Tribunal directing grant of Financial Upgradation to the employee in terms of the statutory provisions governing the field has not committed any error and therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the Union of India deserves to be dismissed. 16. Resultantly, the Writ Petition filed by the Union of India is dismissed. The respondent-employee shall be entitled for grant of Financial Upgradation as has been granted to his juniors by considering his case in terms at par with the juniors in accordance with law and the regulations which are on record as Annexures-A to L of the KIOCL promotion policy for non executives. 17. The exercise of considering the case of respondent be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is re-iterated that the employee shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, difference of salary/back wages, increments etc., No orders as to costs.