Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1837
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
UOI & Others
Versus
Ramesh Chander Pal
W.P.(C) No. 13849 of 2009
Decided on : 04-08-2014
For the Petitioners: None.
For the Respondent:Arpit Maheshwari, Advocate.
In-situ promotions unsupported by rules and outside the hierarchy of posts should be ignored for ACP benefits.
Headnote:
Financial Upgradation - Assured Career Progression Scheme - 1993 Rules, 1987 Rules - Clarification 10.02.2000
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing the grant of second financial upgradation to an employee under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP). The employee was first appointed in 1974 and had received in-situ promotions and upgradations. The CAT relied on a clarification from the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and held that the second financial upgradation was due to the employee after 24 years of service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that in-situ promotions unsupported by the rules and outside the hierarchy of posts should be ignored for the purposes of ACP benefits. It noted discrepancies in the promotion process and the UOI's contradictory stand. The Court also referred to a previous case with a similar ruling and dismissed the UOI's petition.
Issues: Interpretation of ACP scheme, validity of in-situ promotions, application of recruitment rules, and consistency of UOI's stand.
Ratio Decidendi: In-situ promotions outside the hierarchy of posts should be ignored for ACP benefits. The Court's decision is consistent with a previous ruling in a similar case.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed, and the UOI is directed to refix the pension and terminal benefits of the respondent.
S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court):
1. The Union of India (UOI), by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 21.05.2009 in O.A. No.685/2008. The CAT had directed the grant of second financial upgradation under the prevailing Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) to the respondent. Apparently, such benefit had been granted to the respondent (hereafter referred to as “the employee”) but subsequently withdrawn. His unsuccessful representations impelled him to approach the CAT.
2. The brief facts are that the employee was first appointed to the service of the petitioner in the year 1974 as Mazdoor in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/-. In accordance with the then existing policy, “in-situ” promotion or up-gradation was given to him, with effect from 01.04.1992, in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150/-. This was through an order dated 15.12.1993. The respondent’s name was shown at S. No.15 and one Sh. Sahab Singh’s name was at S.No.8. He too was granted first in situ promotion in respect of another pay scale. The respondent was subsequently promoted, in accordance with the rules, to the grade of Binding Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- by order dated 08.05.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner interpreted the ACP scheme formulated by it and had recommended the grant of the second financial upgradation to the petitioner in accordance with its provisions. Later, apparently on a rethinking, that recommendation, sought to be made effective from 09.08.1999, was withdrawn.
3. The CAT, after considering the relevant facts, relied upon the clarification no.2 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) dated 10.02.2000 in respect of the ACP scheme and, after considering the other circumstances, held that the in situ promotion or financial upgradation could not be considered as first promotion and that, upon the respondent’s completion of 24 years of regular service, the second financial upgradation was due and admissible to him.
4. The UOI in its petition contends that the CAT has committed an error in ignoring the in situ promotion. It also contends that the CAT’s reliance upon the previous ruling in Sahab Singh v. UOI and Ors. (O.A. no.799/2005, decided on 02.05.2006) is wrong. Its interpretation, with respect to the clarification dated 10.02.2000, is that the promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1992, to the grade of Machine Attendant, is within the hierarchy and not outside it. The UOI also contends that the DoPT had clarified that the post of Labourer in the Government of India Press had to be treated as common category of posts under clarification 56 of the Office Memorandum dated 18.07.2001, and could be allowed two ACPs in the pay scale of Rs.2650-4000/- (S-3) and Rs.3050-4590/- (S-5) only. It is, therefore, contended that the grant of second upgradation at Rs.4000-6000/- is not permissible in terms of the scheme itself.
5. This Court has cons idered the submissions. The CAT, in the impugned order–as mentioned in the previous narrative, relied upon a clarification dated 10.02.2000 which is to the following effect:
Some employees have been allowed Selection grade/in situ promotions though these grades are not a part of defined hierarchy. Whether this is to be considered as promotion for the purpose of ACPs? Also, what will be the situation if selection grade has been allowed in lieu of higher pay scale? Mobility under ACPs is to be allowed in the existing hierarchy. As such, if any selection grade in situ promotion has been allowed to employees which is not a part of the hierarchy, it shall not be considered
promotion for the purpose of ACPs.
6. Therefore, it is evident that on a plain reading of the clarification itself, in situ promotion which is unsupported by the rules and is outside the hierarchy of posts, it is to be ignored for the purposes of grant of ACP benefits which are mere financial upgradations.
7.
