Back
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Babu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - By way of the present petition, Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents to grant second Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as ACP) benefit on completion of twenty four years of regular service and to restructure the pension in the requisite and correct grade-pay of Assistant-Sub-Inspector as well as to grant the consequential benefits, including arrears of pension as per the correct rank of Assistant-Sub-Inspector instead of Head-Constable.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner retired as a Head Constable from CISF on 30th April, 2005 after serving for thirty years, one month and twenty five days. He states that the Respondents have wrongly fixed the pension of the petitioner in the incorrect grade pay of Head Constable instead of the applicable and correct grade pay of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He states that this is in direct violation of the ACP which categorically grants the benefit of first ACP after regular service of twelve years and second ACP after a regular service of twenty four years.
3. A perusal of the paperbook reveals that the petitioner has submitted a representation through his counsel dated 1s
The court emphasized the importance of deciding the petitioner's representation in accordance with the law.
Employees are entitled to Assured Career Progression benefits as per established regulations, and departments must issue timely, reasoned decisions on representations concerning service benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of the 2nd MACP scheme from the date of completion of 20 years of service, as well as the obligat....
The Court directed timely resolution of benefits claims, highlighting the importance of correct rank hierarchy in service law.
The court directed the application of the 2nd MACP from 01st January 2006 based on precedents, ensuring correct pay scale alignment for the petitioner after 20 years of service.
Prior judgments govern subsequent related claims, mandating adherence to previous decisions regarding entitlements under the MACP scheme.
The legal principle established is that periods of cancellation of appointments can be counted towards continuity in service and related benefits, as per the relevant Government order.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus, emphasizing the need for timely decisions on representations made by petitioners.
The adjustment to Basic Health Worker position was not a promotion; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of second Assured Career Progression from 9.8.1999.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
