Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 274 (JHR)

Raja Ram Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-25

N.N.TIWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT Petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to grant the monetary benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short 'A.C.P.') in the light of Resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002. 2. It is stated that the petitioner retired from the post of Constable, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 01.06.2003. By that time, the petitioner had completed 39 years of regular service. 3. According to the aforementioned Resolution dated 14.08.2012, the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P. after completion of 12 years and another A.C.P. after completion of 24 years. The petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the said A.C.P., but on repeated requests and representation, no order has been passed. 4. The respondents have opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P., as he had not taken training and passed Promotion Course Examination. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was sent for training by issuing command on 08.03.2003. He proceeded for training and gave his joining on 09.03.2003. However, the Training Centre declined to accept his joining on the ground that he was due to retire on 01.06.2003. The petitioner was sent back. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above, there was no fault on the part of petitioner and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of A.C.P. for no fault on his part. Learned counsel further submitted that for giving the benefit to the person (s), who could not get training under circumstance beyond their control, the department itself has made provision for giving said benefit by the Circular issued by letter no. 17 dated 29.01.2003. In the case of the petitioner, the provision of Clause 4 & 5 is attracted, but the respondents have not considered the petitioner's claim in view of the said departmental Circular. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances on record. Admittedly the petitioner retired after rendering service for more than 39 years and in whole of his service no promotion or benefit of A.C.P. has been given to him. The reason for not giving promotion has been said to be want of certificate of Promotion Course Examination. Admittedly the petitioner retired after rendering service for more than 39 years and in whole of his service no promotion or benefit of A.C.P. has been given to him. The reason for not giving promotion has been said to be want of certificate of Promotion Course Examination. The petitioner asserted that he was sent for training, but he was returned by the Training Centre on the ground that he was to retire shortly. The said statement has not been controverted by respondents in their counter affidavit. In view thereof, there was no fault on the part of petitioner in not completing the said examination. 7. Moreover, the respondents have taken decision and issued Circular to deal with such situation and for giving the benefit of A.C.P. under Clause 5 (a), wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the requirement, as mentioned in Rule 660 (c) and 729 (d) of Police Manual be relaxed for considering such cases as one time measure. 8. By order dated 04.02.2013, the respondents were asked as to why the petitioner's case has not been considered in view of the provision contained in letter no. 17 dated 29.01.2003. Time as prayed for was granted for that purpose, but no reply has been filed by the respondents. 9. In view of the above there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in not taking the training and appearing in the Promotion Course Examination, as it was held by Department. The respondents have themselves issued the Circular to deal with such cases providing benefit of A.C.Ps. but the petitioner's claim has not been considered under the said provision. For the reasons aforesaid denial of the benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner is wholly unjust and arbitrary. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order allowing the benefit of 1st A.C.P. as well as 2nd A.C.P. within two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 11. The respondents after issuing orders, shall issue consequential orders for making payment of difference of arrear (s) of pay as well as difference of arrear (s) of pensionary benefits within four weeks thereafter. 12. 11. The respondents after issuing orders, shall issue consequential orders for making payment of difference of arrear (s) of pay as well as difference of arrear (s) of pensionary benefits within four weeks thereafter. 12. If the admitted arrear (s) is/are not paid within the said period, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 10% per annum from the date the arrear (s) is/are found payable till the date of actual payment thereof.