Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA, REKHA PALLI, JJ.
AKHTAR HUSSAIN – Petitioner
Versus
UOI AND OTHERS – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7462 of 2016
Decided On : 17-05-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj.
The residency periods for grant of benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme should be counted from the date of initial direct entry as a government servant.
Headnote:
Assured Career Progression Scheme - Calculation of Service Period - Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Section 4 - Office Memorandum No. 35034/1/97-Estt(D)(Vol. IV) - [Section 4, Office Memorandum No. 35034/1/97-Estt(D)(Vol. IV)] - The court discussed the Assured Career Progression Scheme and its provisions for financial upgradation after 12 and 24 years of regular service. It interpreted the scheme's residency periods for grant of benefits and clarified that service periods should be counted from the date of initial direct entry as a government servant. The court also referred to an Office Memorandum which further clarified the eligibility criteria for financial upgradation under the scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Akhtar Hussain, sought the calculation of his service period for the Assured Career Progression Scheme, specifically regarding the starting point for computing the period of 12 or 24 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service period should be counted from the date of initial direct entry as a government servant, and accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to the second financial upgradation with effect from a specific date in the year 2004.
Issues: Calculation of service period for the Assured Career Progression Scheme
Ratio Decidendi: The residency periods for grant of benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme should be counted from the date of initial direct entry as a government servant.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to comply with the order within two months and specified the consequences of delay in compliance.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that they are opposing the present writ petition only on one ground. We may record, counsel for the respondents, on instructions, has not raised other objections or contentions which are so pleaded in the counter affidavit.
2. Counsel for the respondents submits that for the purpose of Assured Career Progression Scheme, period of 12 and 24 years have to be counted from the date the petitioner-Akhtar Hussain was re-mustered as Constable (Driver) in 1992 and not from the date of initial joining as Constable (General Duty) in 1980.
3. The petitioner-Akhtar Hussain was selected and enrolled as Constable (General Duty) with Central Reserve Police Force in 1980. The petitioner thereafter underwent D & M Course in the year 1992 and was re-mustered in the Driver cadre in the year 1992.
4. It is not the case of the respondents that on re-mustering in 1992, the petitioner stood promoted from Constable (General Duty) to Constable (Driver). It is also not the case of the respondents that pay scale of Constable (Driver) was higher than payable to Constable (General Duty).
5. The question whether the date of initial direct entry as Constable (General Duty) in 1980 or the date of re-mustering i.e. 1992 would be the starting point for computing the period of 12 or 24 years under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, is to be answered by reference to the scheme which records that the period would commence from the date when the Government servant is recruited as a direct recruit. The relevant paragraph of the scheme reads:-
“4. The first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial upgradation subject to fulfilment of prescribed conditions. In other words, if the first upgradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to department proceedings, etc. this would have consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get deferred accordingly.
5.1 xxx xxx xxx
5.2 Residency periods (regular service) for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme shall be counted from the date grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit.”
6. Office Memorandum No. 35034/1/97-Estt(D)(Vol. IV) dated 10th February, 2000 also answers with the said question/issue. Reference can be made to answers given to question Nos. 4, 5 and 6 which read as under:-
| S. No. | Point of doubt | Clarification |
| 4. | In a case where a person is appointed to a post on transfer (absorption) basis from another post, whether 12 years and 24 years of service for the purpose of ACPS will count from the initial appointment or otherwise. | The benefits under ACPS are limited to higher pay scale and do not confer designation, duties and responsibilities of the higher post. Hence, the basic criterion to allow the higher pay scale under ACPS should be whether a person is working in the same pay scale for the prescribed period of 12/24 years. Consequently, so long as a person is in the same pay scale during the period in question, it is immaterial whether he has been holding different posts in the same pay scale. As such, if a Government servant has been appointed to another post in the same pay scale either as a direct recruit or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer basis), it should not make any difference for the purpose of ACPS so long as he is in the same pay scale. In other words, past promotion as well as past regular service in the same pay scale, even if it was on different posts for which appointment was made by different methods like direct recruitment, absorption (transfer)/de |
