ORDER
Y. Bhaskar Rao, C.J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order at Annexure-A, dated 11-6-1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, allowing the application filed by the respondent and granting the reliefs prayed for.
2. The brief facts of the case are, the respondent has been working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Postal Department. The department formulated a scheme to grant incentives for acquiring higher professional qualification in Institute of Cost and Works Accounts of India (in short 'ICWA examination') examination. According to the scheme, two advance increments will be granted after passing inter examination and four more increments after passing the final examination. Respondent passed the intermediate examination during December 1994. When she claimed advance increments as per the scheme, she was granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 4,000/-. This was based on the Official Memorandum dated 28-6-1993 by which the system of granting advance incentives had been modified replacing by payment of one time lumpsum incentive. Thereafter the respondent submitted representations on 28-8-1996 and 8-11-1996 to grant advance increments as per the old scheme which was in force. The request was rejected vide communication dated 19-6-1997. Thereafter, the respondent filed another representation on 17-8-1998 reiterating her request and quoting the case of one K.A. Balagopalan, who was similarly placed and who was granted the similar relief which has been rejected in the case of the respondent. Even that representation also was rejected by endorsement dated 23-9-1998. The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to set aside the said endorsement and for a direction to grant her advance increments instead of lumpsum incentive. The Tribunal after examining the entire matter allowed the application and directed grant of advance increments and to deduct the lumpsum amount of Rs. 4,000/- paid to the respondent. The said order is challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Ashok Harnahalli, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent.
4. The first contention of Mr. Ashok Harnahalli, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal was barred by limitation as the first rejection of her claim was on 19-6-1997 and the application before the Tribunal was filed beyond one year from the said date and therefore the Tribunal has erred in entertaining the application of the respondent, is wholly untenable and cannot be accepted.
5. It is a fact that the first rejection of the claim was on 19-6-1997. Thereafter, the respondent filed another representation giving the instance of grant of advance increments to one K.S. Balagopalan who was similarly placed. In other words, the representation was filed in the nature of review petition though it was not specifically stated so. That petition was rejected on 23-9-1998. Thereafter the application before the Tribunal was filed within one year, which is within the period of limitation prescribed under Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Hence, we reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this regard.
6. The second contention put forward is that the modified scheme came into force vide Official Memorandum dated 28-6-1993 from the financial year 1993-94 itself superseding the earlier scheme dated 10-11-1989 and since the respondent passed the intermediate examination during December 1994, she is not entitled for grant of the benefit under the old scheme already superseded. This contention is misconceived and cannot be accepted.
7. It is a fact that the modified scheme was introduced vide Official Memorandum dated 28-6-1993 in supersession of the earlier scheme dated 10-11-1989. But no scales of incentives were prescribed at that stage. Therefore, the new scheme cannot be given effect to from the financial year 1993-94 itself. The scales of increments were provided only under Official Memorandum dated 31-1-1995. Until that time, an official was not entitled to the benefit of 1993 scheme. Therefore, the claim put forth by the respondent under the old scheme was perfectly justified and the Tribunal has rightly granted the reliefs to her.
8. We may also observe that in the case of K.A. Balagopalan, who passed the final examination in December 1994, the advance increment was granted applying the old scheme though the petitioners claim that by that time the old scheme was superseded. Once Balagopalan was granted the benefit under the old scheme, respondent cannot be discriminated in similar matter.
9. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The order is perfectly justified and do not warrant interference by this Court.
10. Writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners are directed to implement the order of the Tribunal within one month from the date respondent refunds Rs. 4,000/- which was paid to her under the new scheme.