Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 157 (JHR)

Satyanarayan Sah v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-20

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
ORDER : I.A. No. 6909 of 2016, which has been filed for early hearing of the writ petition, stands allowed. 2. Aggrieved of order dated 20.07.2012 whereby, the petitioner has been held not entitled for 1st ACP, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Heard. 4. The petitioner, who was appointed under Water Resources Department as Dakrunner on 15.02.1974, was appointed as Treasury Guard on regular basis, on 22.05.1981. Subsequently, he was appointed to the post of Typist on 24.07.1981 and he was granted 1st ACP vide order dated 02.02.2004 w.e.f. 09.08.1999. The petitioner has asserted that he passed the Departmental Accounts Examination in the month of November, 1995. These facts are not disputed by the respondents in the present proceeding. It appears that when 1st Time-Bound Promotion was not granted to the petitioner he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3456 of 2007, in which a direction was issued to the respondent-authority to take a decision on his claim. Taking note of the fact that he cleared the departmental examination in the month of November, 1995, he was granted 1st Time-Bound Promotion w.e.f. 13.11.1995, vide order dated 12.12.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner is only to the extent he has been denied 1st ACP, vide impugned order dated 20.07.2012. 5. The scheme of Assured Career Progression was notified by the Jharkhand Government on 14.08.2002. It is an admitted fact that benefits under the ACP scheme which became effective from 09.08.1999 were extended to the employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of continuous service. However, if an employee has been granted promotion prior to 09.08.1999 he has been denied 1st ACP. The logic is simple. ACP scheme has been floated to extend incentives to the employees who, on account of limited number of promotional posts could not be promoted and while so, an employee who was already granted one promotion prior to 09.08.1999 cannot be granted 1st financial upgradation under ACP scheme. From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the petitioner who has already been granted 1st Time-Bound Promotion w.e.f. 13.11.1995, was eligible for 2nd ACP which has duly been accorded to him w.e.f. 09.08.1999. 6. From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the petitioner who has already been granted 1st Time-Bound Promotion w.e.f. 13.11.1995, was eligible for 2nd ACP which has duly been accorded to him w.e.f. 09.08.1999. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I find that the impugned order dated 20.07.2012 insofar as, ACP/MACP benefits to the petitioner is concerned, has correctly been issued in the light of the Resolution dated 14.08.2002. Viewed thus, challenge to the impugned order dated 20.07.2012 on account of denial of 1st ACP fails. However, in view of the fact that initially the petitioner was granted 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 vide office order dated 02.02.2004 which stands withdrawn by the impugned order, it is hereby ordered that while calculating the financial benefits which shall be granted to the petitioner, no recovery shall be effected and amount, if any, already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted from the benefits which shall be given to the petitioner in terms of office order dated 20.07.2012. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.