Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 553 (ORI)

Union of India v. Gangadhar Mohanty

2010-08-05

PRADIP MOHANTY, S.K.MISHRA

body2010
JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — The simple question that arises in this case is whether to avail benefit of Assured Career Progression, in short the ‘ACP’, it is necessary for the employee to have requisite qualification for getting promotion to the higher cadre. 2. The Department of Posts, Union of India has preferred this writ petition against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.573 of 2006, wherein the Tribunal ordered that the ACP benefits be granted to the applicant within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the fact of the case is that the opposite party was initially recruited to the post of ‘Patwari’ under DNK Project w.e.f. 07.04.1966. He was rendered as a surplus and therefore he was adjusted as a ‘Sorter’ in the Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kolkata w.e.f. 13.05.1988 with necessary pay protection. Thereafter, he was pro¬moted to the post of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.10.1993 and transferred to the office of petitioner No.4 as LDC. On the basis of recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, the scale of pay of ‘Patwari’ and LDC were clubbed together and made as Rs.3050-4590/-. He having been denied ACP benefits approached the Tribunal. In order to meet the genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues, on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, the Government of India, as a safety net measure accepted and floated a policy commonly known as Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The scheme provides for grant of two financial upgradations in the entire service career of a Government servant, if no regular promotion during the prescribed periods (22 and 24 years) have been availed of by an employee. It further provides that if an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. It also envisages that in case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP scheme shall accrue to him. In Column No.6 of the said scheme it pro¬vides that fulfilment of conditions of normal promotion shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the ACP scheme. It also envisages that in case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP scheme shall accrue to him. In Column No.6 of the said scheme it pro¬vides that fulfilment of conditions of normal promotion shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the ACP scheme. According to the opposite party, similarly situated persons like him having been redeployed have been given the benefits of ACP whereas though he fulfilled all the norms to be entitled to benefit of ACP, the same was denied to him. According to him, denial of ACP benefits to similarly placed employees of other departments formed the subject matter of consideration in OA No.40 of 2001. The said OA was disposed of on 2nd May, 2003 with direction for grant of the benefit of ACP to the applicants therein but even then he has been deprived of extenso of the benefit of ACP although he has not got any promotion during his entire service career starting from 1966 till his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 02.09.2004. 4. Learned Tribunal has held that the applicant being declared surplus was allowed to be appointed as LDC in all fair¬ness, he is entitled to be promoted to the next post, according to his turn although he was not a matriculate after completion of five years of service in the grade. The Tribunal further held that admittedly, the applicant had got no promotion and as such denial of benefit of ACP on the pretext as stated in the counter cannot be said to be in consonance with the purpose for which the scheme was introduced. 5. It is further seen that such order was challenged by the Union of India, Meteorological Department in W.P.(C) No.9721 of 2009, wherein the orders passed by the Tribunal were held to be correct. In pursuance of the orders of this Court on 17.07.2009 in the above Writ Petition, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General of Health, have clarified that Union of India has no objection to grant the second ACP scheme to the opposite party in that case. Once the Union of India has accepted order of the Court and has granted second ACP to one employee, then the Union of India cannot deny the same benefit to the similarly placed employees. 6. Once the Union of India has accepted order of the Court and has granted second ACP to one employee, then the Union of India cannot deny the same benefit to the similarly placed employees. 6. After going through the records, this Court comes to the conclusion that the reasons recorded by learned Tribunal are proper and require no interference. In the result the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. PRADIP MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.