JUDGMENT : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J : The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 18.07.2012 in OA No.1254 of 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows : The applicant/respondent herein was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) in Head Quarter, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam on 20.05.1972 on causal basis. Subsequently, the services of the applicant were regularized with effect from 01.09.1979 in the grade of L.D.C. against a sanctioned post. 3. As the career prospects in the cadre of L.D.C. is very slow, the applicant applied for the post of Telephone Operator Grade-II and got selected and appointed to the said post with effect from 25.08.1983 on temporary basis. The applicant was also granted lien in the post of L.D.C. for a period of two years. Subsequently, the services of the applicant in the cadre of Telephone Operator Grade-II were regularized with effect from 13.06.1984 against a sanctioned post. The applicant was placed on probation and the lien period in the grade of L.D.C. was further extended for a period with effect from 25.08.1985. 4. While so, as per the orders of this Court in WA No.239 of 1980 dated 20.12.1985, the services of the applicant were regularized in the cadre of L.D.C. from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 20.05.1972. The applicant was given in-situ promotion as the basic pay of the applicant was stagnated as per Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBOP). In consequence of in-situ promotion, the pay scale of the applicant was fixed in the scale of Rs.4,000-100-6,000 on 01.05.1997. The applicant was also granted second financial up-gradation under Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme with effect from 09.08.1999. 5. However, the benefit granted to the applicant under TBOP Scheme as well as ACP scheme were withdrawn by the Department on 05.12.2006 and the applicant was given first time bound promotion under TBOP scheme on 25.08.1999 by counting his service from the date of regularization as Telephone Operator Grade-II dated 13.06.1984 and ignoring his service in the cadre of L.D.C. for a period of 11 years and 3 months i.e., from 20.05.1972. 6. 6. The applicant gave representation on 13.11.2006 bringing all the facts and contending that he had worked in the Department for 34 years and was granted only one promotion under TBOP scheme, though he was entitled for two promotions under that scheme in the time span of 16 and 26 years of service. It is the case of the applicant that his service should be counted from 20.05.1972. 7. The respondents/writ petitioners filed their counter contending that the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed. However, in the counter-affidavit filed before Central Administrative Tribunal, it was admitted that the pay scales of L.D.C. and Telephone Operator Grade-II are identical. Further, it was contended that benefits under TBOP scheme and ACP scheme cannot run concurrently and the promotion granted to the applicant were withdrawn as per the instructions of the Union of India. It was however stated that the applicant was given first time bound promotion under TBOP scheme on 25.08.1999 and second time bound promotion under the said scheme was also granted to the applicant on 25.08.2009 on completion of 26 years of service. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the nature and purport of TBOP scheme and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mathivanan, CA No.5739 of 2005, (2006) 6 SCC 57 and Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another v. Union of India, (1999) 2 SCC 119 , allowed the O.A., directing the respondents/writ petitioners to revise and grant two financial up-gradations under TBOP scheme on completion of 16-26 years of service taking into his service as L.D.C. from 20.05.1972. 9. Heard Sri Arun Showri, learned Counsel for Central Government. There was no representation for the respondent. 10. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, "Whether the order of the Tribunal in directing the writ petitioners/respondents to count the service of the applicant/ respondent from the date of his initial appointment as L.D.C. i.e., 20.05.1972 under TBOP scheme is sustainable?" 11. The TBOP scheme which was introduced with effect from 30.11.1983 to grant next higher grade to Groups-C and D employees who were stagnated without promotion in the same grade for more than 16 years. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that on completion of 16 years of continuous service, an employee would be entitled for promotional scale. The TBOP scheme which was introduced with effect from 30.11.1983 to grant next higher grade to Groups-C and D employees who were stagnated without promotion in the same grade for more than 16 years. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that on completion of 16 years of continuous service, an employee would be entitled for promotional scale. The scale of pay for L.D.C., as well as Telephone Operator Grade-II were admitted to be identical by the department in the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal. The switch of applicant from the cadre of L.D.C., to the cadre of Telephone Operator Grade-II was for better career prospects and this should not make any difference for consideration of benefit under TBOP scheme since the scale of pay remained same. 12. As the services of the applicant in the cadre of L.D.C. was regularized with effect from 20.05.1972 as per the orders of this Court in WA No.239 of 1980, the applicant's consideration under TBOP scheme should be with effect from that date only. It would be a totally different scenario, if the scale of pay was different to the cadre of Telephone Operator Grade-II and L.D.C. 13. The issue that fell for consideration in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar's case (supra), which was relied upon by the Tribunal was "The point in issue is whether for the purpose of computing 16 years' service for getting a "time-bound promotion", as per the relevant circular of the Government dated 17.12.1983, the appellants are entitled to count the service rendered by them in the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India prior to their transfer to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the purpose of the scheme held that a distinction should be made regarding seniority in the new cadre and benefits of the past service in the previous department for the purpose of counting the benefit under the TBOP Scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that past service of the appellants is to be counted for the limited purpose of eligibility under the TBOP Scheme. The Paragraphs 18 and 19 are extracted below for ready reference: "18. Hence the transfer order and circular concerned of 1983 which required that the past service should not count for seniority, cannot have any bearing on eligibility for time-bound promotion. Seniority and time-bound promotions are different concepts, as stated above. 19. The Paragraphs 18 and 19 are extracted below for ready reference: "18. Hence the transfer order and circular concerned of 1983 which required that the past service should not count for seniority, cannot have any bearing on eligibility for time-bound promotion. Seniority and time-bound promotions are different concepts, as stated above. 19. For the above reasons, we hold that the past service of the appellants is to be counted for the limited purpose of eligibility - for computing the number of years of qualifying service, to enable them to claim the higher grade under the Scheme of Time-bound Promotions." 15. A similar issue was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. V.N. Bhat, (2003) 8 SCC 413 , that the employee therein sought transfer from service in Army to Postal Department and the same was acceded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the transfer was voluntary, the benefit of TBOP scheme could not be denied. The principle in the Dwijen Chandra Sarkar's case (supra), was followed. The relevant portion of the judgment at Paragraph 4 is extracted below for ready reference: "The well-settled principle of law that even in the case where the transfer has been allowed on request, the employee concerned merely loses his seniority, but the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that he should be deprived of the other benefits including his experience and eligibility for promotion. In terms of the Schemes aforementioned, promotion is to be granted for avoiding stagnation only within the said parties. The said Schemes have been framed because they are beneficial ones and are thus required to be implemented. The Scheme merely perused that any person having rendered 16/26 years of service without obtaining any promotion could be entitled to the benefit therefor. It is, therefore, not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Even in a case where the promotion is to be made on selection basis, the employee concerned, even if he be placed at the bottom of the Seniority List in terms of the order of transfer based in his favour, he cannot be deprived of being considered for promotion to the next higher post if he is eligible therefor." 16. Even in a case where the promotion is to be made on selection basis, the employee concerned, even if he be placed at the bottom of the Seniority List in terms of the order of transfer based in his favour, he cannot be deprived of being considered for promotion to the next higher post if he is eligible therefor." 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the similar arguments of the department in Union of India v. M. Mathivanan (supra) and it was argued that the judgment in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar's case (supra), was distinguishable on the ground that the inter departmental transfer was in public interest by the department in that case and as such, it would not be applicable to cases where the transfer is voluntary and at the instance of an employee. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the scope of the TBOP scheme held that whether transfer is voluntary or involuntary would not make any difference for the benefit under the scheme. The relevant observation at Paragraph 17 thereof is extracted below: "17. It is no doubt true as observed by the High Court that Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another v. Union of India, (1999) 2 SCC 119 , was not an identical case, inasmuch as in that case, the appellants were transferred "in public interest", whereas in the instant case, the transfer was volunteered by the respondent employee for enrolment in army. That, however, in our opinion, does not make a difference since to us, the language of Para 1 of the Scheme is clear, unambiguous and leaves no room for doubt. That aspect was also considered in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar's case (supra). But, in any case, even that point is also finally concluded by another decision of this Court in Union of India v. V.N. Bhat, (2003) 8 SCC 413 , in which the employee was initially appointed in the Ministry of Defence and voluntarily transferred himself to the office of the Post Master General." 18. In the facts of this case, the applicant continued in the same department though in a different post with the same scale. In the facts of this case, the applicant continued in the same department though in a different post with the same scale. If the contention of the department is to be accepted, the applicant would be continued in the same grade from 1972 onwards till 1999 i.e., for a period of 27 years and in the opinion of this Court, the same would defeat the purport of the TBOP Scheme. 19. Considering the purport of the TBOP scheme and in the light of the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed and the order of the Tribunal shall be implemented within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.