Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, (NAGPUR BENCH)
Urmila Joshi Phalke, A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
Pundlik Dadaji Pipare – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 884 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022
For the Petitioner: Shri Uday Dastane.
For the Respondent: Shri M.V. Samarth, Shri R.M. Fating.
Headnote:
ACPS - Employee Benefit - M.C.S. (Revised pay) Rules, 1988, Government Resolution dated 31/01/1989, 01/11/1995, 20/07/2001, 11/02/2002, 06/11/2007, 02/03/2019 - The court discussed the employee's entitlement to benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) in light of various government resolutions and rules. The court emphasized the conditions for eligibility, including completion of continuous service and limitations on multiple promotions, and interpreted the scheme's objective to provide relief against stagnation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering, challenged the denial of second benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) from 01/10/2006. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit due to promotions and upgradations. The respondent contended that the upgradation to the post of Sectional Engineer was not a promotion and that he was entitled to the benefit under the ACPS and MACPS.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not entitled to the second benefit under the ACPS as he had not completed 12 years of continuous service on the same post. The court also held that the respondent's application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was not premature, as his right was affected by the communication from the petitioner. The court quashed the tribunal's order directing the release of the second benefit and directed the petitioner to reconsider the benefit based on the respondent's continuous service from 07/07/1999.
Issues: The issues involved the employee's entitlement to the second benefit under the ACPS, the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the interpretation of the upgradation to the post of Sectional Engineer as a promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent was not entitled to the second benefit under the ACPS as he had not completed 12 years of continuous service on the same post. The court also found that the respondent's application before the tribunal was not premature, as his right was affected by the communication from the petitioner. The court emphasized that the upgradation to the post of Sectional Engineer was not a promotion and that the respondent's entitlement to the benefit should be based on his continuous service from 07/07/1999.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the tribunal's order directing the release of the second benefit, and directed the petitioner to reconsider the benefit based on the respondent's continuous service from 07/07/1999. The court made the rule absolute and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 18/02/2021 granting second benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘ACPS’ in short) from 01/10/2006 is under challenge in this petition.
4. The respondent-Pundlik Dadaji Pipare is qualified as the Diploma holder in Civil Engineering. He was initially appointed as ‘Technical Assistant’ in Class-III on pay scale of Rs.260-10-390-15-420-15-495 vide appointment order dated 04/06/1982. He joined the service on 23/06/1982. The said pay scale was revised as Rs.975-1540 with effect from 01/01/1986 as per the provisions of M.C.S. (Revised pay) Rules, 1988. As per the contention of the petitioners-State Government vide Government Resolution dated 31/01/1989, the respondent was absorbed on the new post of ‘Civil Engineer Assistant’ with higher pay scale of Rs.1200-30-1440-E.B.-30-1800 by order dated 25/09/1989 with effect from 01/01/1989 by fixing the revised pay with additional two increments.
5. As the respondent had completed 12 years of regular service from his initial date of appointment as ‘Technical Assistant’, therefore, the Superintending Engineer, Chandrapur, Irrigation Project Circle vide order dated 02/09/1998 granted the first benefit under the time bound promotion, thereby sanctioning the pay scale of next promotional post of ‘Civil Engineer Assistant’ with effect from 01/10/1994. Thus, respondent was granted further higher pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-E.B.-75-2900 within a period of five years after having been absorbed on the post of ‘Civil Engineer Assistant’. It is clarified by the Government under Clause No.11 of the Government Resolution dated 01/11/1995 issued by Finance Department that as per the policy decision taken by the Administrative Department, the respondent who had got higher pay scale at the time of absorption in the newly created cadre of ‘Civil Engineer Assistant’ in 1989 was bound to get the said benefit of higher pay scale of promotional post under the time bound promotion after rendering 12 years of regular service on the post of ‘Civil Engineer Assistant’ in the year 2001. As per the contention of the petitioners that the same was granted erroneously to the respondent in the year 1994 itself. Thereafter respondent was promoted vide order dated 07/07/1999 as ‘Junior Engineer Class-III (Group C)’ on pay scale as per the 5th Pay Commission at Rs.1640-60-2600-E.B.-75-2900 and as per 6th Pay Commission at Rs.5500-175-9000 and he had joined the promotional post on 23/09/1999. By the Government Resolution dated 20/07/2001, the Government of Maharashtra introduced an ACPS with effect from 01/08/2001 and replaced Time Bound Promotion Scheme. The said scheme was introduced for employees/officers drawing the pay scale of Rs.8000-13,500/- and below and who had completed 12 years of regular service on the same post. It was further clarified that those who had received two or more promotions would not be entitled for the benefit under the ACPS.
6. The Government Resolution dated 11/02/2002 issued by the Irrigation Department by which the benefit of ACPS was granted to the ‘Junior Engineers’ who had rendered 12 years of service on the post of Sectional Engineer. The said benefit was not given to the respondent as he got said benefit under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. The respondent was not eligible for the benefit under the ACPS in view of Clause 2(6) of the said Government Resolution dated 20/07/2001. It further appeared that by the Government Resolution dated 06/11/2007, the post of the respondent as ‘Junior Engineer Class-III (Group-C)’ was appointed by selection on the basis of seniority, holding the post of ‘Junior Engineer’ as ‘Sectional Engineer Group-II’ i.e. on the pay scale as per the 5th Pay Commission Rs.6500-200-10500 and as per 6th Pay Commission Rs.9300-34800 + Grade P
