Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 820 (HP)

Parvind Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - By medium of the extant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following substantive relief: "That the order dated 02.03.2016, rejection of the representation of the applicant may kindly be quashed and set-aside and respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay of the applicant by giving him the benfits under Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 4/9/14 of service from due dates and arrear thereof may be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum with all consequential benefits." 2. Tersely, the key facts, which are necessary for adjudication of the extant lis, are that on 09.08.2012 the petitioner was granted benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'ACPS'), however, monetary benefits of the same was not released to him. As per the petitioner, the impugned action is arbitrary, illegal, malafide, violative of Constitution of India and natural justice. 3. The petitioner is a Health Worker and he joined as such on 08.03.1983 and on 26.12.2005 he was promoted as health Educator. On 09.08.2012 respondent No. 2 introduced ACPS on completion of 4/9/14 years of service in a cadre and restored old (8-16-24-32) ACPS for government employees. On 29.09.2012, the petitioner, in writing, gave his option for the aforestated 4-9-14 scheme, but, surprisingly, he did not receive any benefit thereunder. So ultimately, he filed a representation, but the same was rejected on the basis that he has already been granted benefits admissible to him. As per the petitioner, the respondent-department granted benefits of ACPS to one Shri Raj Kumar, Health Educator at CHC Baldwara, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh Lastly, the petitioner prays that the extant petition be allowed and impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner be quashed and set-aside and the respondents be directed to re-fix his pay granting benefit of ACPS on completion of 4-9-14 from due dates and arrear thereof be paid to him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with all consequential benefits. 4. Conversely, the respondents, by way of filing an extensive and detailed reply to the extant petition, resisted and denied the claim of the petitioner. 4. Conversely, the respondents, by way of filing an extensive and detailed reply to the extant petition, resisted and denied the claim of the petitioner. Precisely, as per the respondents, ACPS was applicable on and w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and on subsequent pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the operation of the above scheme was stopped after 26.08.2009, through Notification dated 26.08.2009 and w.e.f. 27.08.2009 new ACPS, on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service in a cadre, was introduced. As per the respondents, the above scheme is optional and under it an existing employee, having less than 4 years of service, has been given the option, either to continue in the existing (old) scheme after a service of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service, applicable from 01.01.1996 or to opt 4, 9 & 14 years, viz., new scheme applicable from 27.08.2009. It is contended that as per para 2 (vii) of the old ACP scheme and para 4(a) of new ACP scheme, the prescribed placements/proficiency steps-up/progressions are to be given in the entire service career and both these schemes are aimed at to provide financial benefits, where no promotional avenues are available to an employee. As per the respondents, the petitioner, after completion of 8 years' service and on completion of 16 years' of service on 07.03.1991 and 08.03.1999, respectively granted two increments under the then ACPS. In January, 2006, the petitioner was promoted as Health Educator and consequent thereto he was granted financial benefit(s). Thus, the petitioner has no legitimate claim of ACPS. It is further contended that the petitioner has no claim on the analogy of one Shri Raj Kumar, Health Educator, as no financial benefit(s) stood released in his favour over and above the instructions of the government. Lastly, it is prayed that the extant writ petition, being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is eligible for grant of financial benefit(s) under the new ACPS and denial of the same is not only arbitrary, but against the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is eligible for grant of financial benefit(s) under the new ACPS and denial of the same is not only arbitrary, but against the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has further argued that the petitioner, after his promotion as Health Educator on 26.12.2005, did not earn any promotion and ACPS came in force on 09.08.2012, which envisages that a government employee, who did not get any promotion for 4/9/14 years, is entitled for step up in his pay under the ACPS. Lastly, he has argued that the extant writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order, rejecting his representation, be quashed and set-aside and due and admissible financial benefits may be released in favour of the petitioner. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the old as well as new ACP schemes clearly provide that placements/proficiency steps-up/progressions are to be given in the entire service career and both these scheme are aimed to provide financial benefits, where no promotional avenues are available to an employee. He has further argued that the petitioner, after completion of 8 and 16 years of service, on 07.03.1991 and 08.03.1999, respectively, granted financial benefits under the prevalent ACPS and in January, 2006, the petitioner was promoted as Health Educator, so the claim of the petitioner is not legally sustainable. In the above backdrop, he prays that the extant writ petition be dismissed and the same sans merits. 7. Manifestly, the records reveal that para 2(vii) of old ACPS and para 4(a) of new ACPS provide that placements/proficiency steps-up/progressions are to be given in the entire service career. Now, it remains undisputed that the petitioner has already been granted financial benefits twice, viz., after completion of 8 years' service on 07.03.1991 and on 08.03.1999, after completion of 16 years' service. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was promoted as Health Educator in January, 2006. 8. Now, it remains undisputed that the petitioner has already been granted financial benefits twice, viz., after completion of 8 years' service on 07.03.1991 and on 08.03.1999, after completion of 16 years' service. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was promoted as Health Educator in January, 2006. 8. Upon delving into the ACP Scheme(s), it is clear that the chief object of the ACPS, is to provide financial enhancement in the same cadre/post, to an employee or a class of employees, who is/are not promoted to a higher level(s) on account of non-availability of vacancies or non-existence of a promotional avenue(s) in the cadre(s), shall be granted the grade pay, which is next higher in the hierarchy of grade pay. Now, in the case in hand, the petitioner has already been granted financial benefit(s) twice on 07.03.1991 and 08.03.1999, upon completion of 8 and 16 years' of service, respectively and in January, 2006, he stood promoted to the post of Health Educator, thus the claim of the petitioner is not legally sustainable. 9. Another contention of the petitioner, as emerge, is that he be treated equally and granted financial benefit on the analogy of one Shri Raj Kumar, Health Educator. This claim of the petitioner is also not sustainable, as, a perusal of the reply makes it clear that no financial benefit(s) has been granted to the above employee, over and above the ACPS, so there is no question of similar treatment to the petitioner. Thus, the parity, which the petitioner is seeking is not available to him. 10. In view of foregoing discussions and considering the relevant law on the subject, the extant writ petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. All pending application(s) shall also stand(s) disposed of.