Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 335 (HP)

Union of India v. Krishan Chand Verma

2008-07-02

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2008
JUDGMENT (Deepak Gupta, J.) - (Oral) - This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two writ petitions since common questions of law and fact arise in the same. 2.The short question which arise in these writ petition is whether an employee can be denied the benefited of the Assured Career Progression Scheme for Central Government Civilian employees (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) on the ground that he does not possess the requisite education qualifications for the post, scale of which has to be granted to him under the Scheme? 3.Brief facts are that the Central Government framed a scheme for Central Government civilian employees in pursuance to the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. The purpose of the scheme obviously is to be prevent heart burning and frustration amongst employees who cannot get promotion for a long period of time their due to non availability of vacancies in the higher post or due to the fact that they are holding an isolated post in the cadre which has no promotional avenues. To meet such a situation, a scheme was formulated and the salient features of the scheme are that on completion of 12 years of service the employee would be placed in the next higher scale of pay and on completion of 24 years of service he would be placed in the further higher scale of pay. 4.The employees in this case were Fieldsmen in the Forest Survey of India. They are non-matriculates. The next promotional post is that of Deputy Ranger. According to the employer since the employees do not have the essential requisite qualification of being matriculates they cannot be granted promotion and so they cannot also be granted the benefit of the scheme. The employee approached the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the employees. The Tribunal held that the purpose of the scheme is to avoid frustration amongst the employees and it is not necessary that the employee must possess the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the next higher post. This order of the learned tribunal dated 20.11.2002 passed in OA No. 1062/HP/2001 is under challenge before us. 5.We have heard Sh. Ravinder Thakur, learned C.G.S.C. and Sh. M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 6.The main argument of Sh. This order of the learned tribunal dated 20.11.2002 passed in OA No. 1062/HP/2001 is under challenge before us. 5.We have heard Sh. Ravinder Thakur, learned C.G.S.C. and Sh. M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 6.The main argument of Sh. Ravinder Thakur is that under condition No. 6 of the scheme all the normal promotion norms such as benchmark, departmental examination, seniority-cum-fitness in the case of Group ‘D’ employees for grant of financial up gradations shall be followed for grant of benefits under the Scheme. He also relief upon the clarification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training wherein a Column No. 16 the question posed to the Department was whether where the relevant recruitment/Service Rules prescribe Departmental examination/skill test for vacancy based promotion should passing of the examination be insisted for upgradation under the Scheme. The Ministry clarified that as per the condition No. 6, all promotion norms have to be fulfilled for upgradation under the scheme, as such, no upgradation shall be allowed if an employee fails to qualify departmental skill test prescribed for the purpose of regular promotion. 7.As far as this clarification is concerned, in our opinion, this does not apply to the present case. The question which arise in the present case is whether the employee must have the minimum qualification prescribed for the next higher scale for the purpose of getting benefit under the scheme. This was not the question posed to the Ministry of Personnel and Training. Therefore, the clarification has no relevance to the present case. Even otherwise on merits we feels that the clarification will nullify the purpose of the scheme. 8.The learned Tribunal in its order has given an example of persons such as drivers being posted on isolated posts who either do not have any promotion avenues or even if they have such avenues skills demanded are totally different in nature. 9.The purpose of the scheme is not substitute higher scale for promotion. The purpose of the scheme as mentioned in the scheme is to avoid stagnation and frustration amongst the employees who are getting the same scale of pay, for interminably long period. This purpose would be frustrated and set at naught if the interpretation given by the writ petitioner is accepted. The purpose of the scheme as mentioned in the scheme is to avoid stagnation and frustration amongst the employees who are getting the same scale of pay, for interminably long period. This purpose would be frustrated and set at naught if the interpretation given by the writ petitioner is accepted. 10.As pointed out by the Tribunal, in case of employees posted against the isolated post having no promotional avenues they obviously would not be required to have any minimum standards of qualification for higher post. In the case of employees where promotion avenues are available and the promotions are being denied due to lack of vacancies, to insist upon the employee having the minimum educational qualification required for the higher post would, in our opinion, be against the purpose of the scheme. 11.In view of the above discussions, we agree with the reasoning given by he learned Tribunal. We find no reason to interfere in the order of the learned Tribunal. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. M.R.B. ———————