What is the criteria to justify the upgradation? Latest Judgment

The upgradation of a post is not a vested right, but it stems from a policy decision
for its implementation for the particular set of employees as per scheme embedded
in the Policy which cannot be mixed up with the promotion. By and large,
upgradation is accorded to all positions in a category upon completion of a
FORTNIGHTLY CASE LAW BULLETIN
10
required length of service in accordance with the benchmarks laid down by the
competent authority as a policy decision. Upgradation is the process of improving
the quality or usefulness of something or of giving a person a more important job,
but in one fell swoop if the upgradation is concomitant and coexisted to all the
posts in a group of employees, then obviously there is no sense in calling it a
promotion of all the persons in that category. A promotion involves advancement
in rank, grade or a footstep en route to a higher position, whereas the facility or
benefit of upgradation simply confers some monetary benefits by granting a
higher pay scale to ventilate sufferings which is a translucent distinction between
the two genres. In the case of upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the
same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale.
In order to lessen the distress or misery as a result of stagnation, the modus of
upgradation moves in on for reparation. Upgradation under the scheme is personal
to the incumbents of a particular post for a sufficient length of service without any
progression or avenue of promotion. The upgradation cannot be made to benefit a
particular individual in terms of promoting him to a higher post or further
providing him with the avenues of lateral appointment or transfer or posting. To
justify the upgradation, the Government is required to establish that the
department needs restructuring, reform or to meet the exigency of service in the
public interest.