Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1043 (JHR)

Rambir Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-27

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner in this application has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for grant of ACP to him and for revision of his pension by revising the pension amount and also for grant of all consequential benefits 2. The petitioner's case, in brief. is that he was appointed as a Constable in the year 1964 and after completing more than 39 years of service, he retired from the post of constable on 1.7.2001. 3. His grievance is that despite total length of 39 years of continuous service, he was not given benefit either of the 1st or 2nd ACP although several other persons junior to him in the gradation list were granted such benefit from August. 1999. The petitioner filed several representations demanding his claim for grant of the ACP benefits and corresponding revision of the pay scale, but In vain 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents explaining therein that although ACP benefits were applicable to the Police Personnel also, but according to a departmental, decision, benefit of ACP to the Police Personnel could be given only if they qualify by passing the SPC training examination. 5. learned counsel refers to and invites attention to the Circular dated 14.8.2002, (Annexure-D) issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, and explains that as per the decision of the Finance Department of the State Government, though decision to implement the ACP scheme in respect of the Police Personnel was adopted, but it was also declared that such benefit would be given to such persons who are found qualified learned counsel explains that for grant of ACP benefits to the candidates, the Department has fixed passing of SPC training as a requisite qualification and an eligibility criteria. 6. Referring to a letter dated 24.7.2000 (Annexure-C/9), learned counsel for the respondents explains that a Circular was issued by the State Police Department in the office of the DGP informing all the Police Personnel that SPC training would be conducted from 8.8.2000 to enable such Police Personnel who were desirous of availing the training. 6. Referring to a letter dated 24.7.2000 (Annexure-C/9), learned counsel for the respondents explains that a Circular was issued by the State Police Department in the office of the DGP informing all the Police Personnel that SPC training would be conducted from 8.8.2000 to enable such Police Personnel who were desirous of availing the training. By the second part of the said annexure, it was also notified that those Police Personnel who did not desire to appear at the test, were required to submit their declaration to this effect. Learned counsel adds that despite opportunity granted to the petitioner, he did not appear at the test, nor did he avail the opportunity of passing the test. The petitioner retired in the year 2001 and even though he worked for 39 years, but since during the entire period of service, he did not pass the examination required for grant of ACP, he could not possibly be given the benefits of ACP. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such eligibility criteria was fixed by the respondents prior to the petitioner's date of retirement. The eligibility criteria fixed in the year 2002 cannot operate retrospectively. Even otherwise, the eligibility criteria fixed by the Department is against the spirit of the ACP scheme inasmuch as, ACP was basically granted by way of pay protection to such employees who, despite completing 12/24 years of continuous service, could not get regular promotion. The ACP scheme, therefore, was intended only to benefit such employees and therefore introduction of any eligibility criteria frustrates the purpose of the Scheme and is illegal and arbitrary. 8. Admittedly, the ACP scheme after its introduction in the year 1999, was made applicable to Government servants including the Police Personnel in the State Police Service. The Scheme' was intended essentially to protect those employees who, despite more than 12 years of continuous service, could not secure regular promotion. Admittedly, on the date when the Scheme was introduced, the petitioner had completed more than 35 years' of continuous service maintaining an unblemished record. The Scheme' was intended essentially to protect those employees who, despite more than 12 years of continuous service, could not secure regular promotion. Admittedly, on the date when the Scheme was introduced, the petitioner had completed more than 35 years' of continuous service maintaining an unblemished record. The denial of the benefit of the ACP Scheme to the petitioner is on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain the SPC training, which was stipulated as an eligibility criteria in the State Government Circular of August 2002 (Annexure-D) The respondents have not produced any such notification of the State Government and of the State Police Department Issued prior to 2002 which could apply to the petitioner during his tenure in service. The eligibility criteria as fixed by the Circular of 2002, cannot operate retrospectively Furthermore, the several Circulars (Annexure-C series) notifying the dates for holding SPC Training was only optional. These Circulars do not indicate that the Training would have any bearing to the grant of ACP. The petitioner claims that he had passed the ACP examination which, according to him, is an alternative qualification to SPC Training. Such claim of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The petitioner's representation for grant of ACP has also not been disposed of by the concerned authority of the respondents. 9 In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner's claim certainly needs to be re-considered by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the concerned authority of the respondent State to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by recording a reasoned and speaking order, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. If the petitioner is found entitled to the benefits of the ACP. then, the respondents shall also ensure that such benefits are given to the petitioner with all consequential benefits thereon from the date when the petitioner became eligible for grant of such benefits. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.