The main legal point established is that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the MACPS, and the denial of such benefits due to erroneous actions by the authorities was unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also head Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department representing the respondent Nos.1 & 3; Mr. K.K. Medhi, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2 and Mrs. D. Borpujari, learned counsel representing the respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner, on being selected, was initially appointed as a Laboratory Bearer in the Department of Botany in Rangia College vide order dated 07.04.1992. He joined in the said post on 20.04.1992. The petitioner claims to be in regular employment since the day of his initial appointment. The petitioner’s services were provincialized w.e.f. 01.12.2005 in terms of the provisions of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005. The grievance raised in the present proceeding is with regard to denial of the benefits to the petitioner flowing under the Assured Career Progression Scheme formulated by the State Government for its employees. Subsequently, the said Scheme was renamed as “Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme” (hereinafter referred to as “MACPS”).

3. Under the said Scheme, financial upgradation is extended to the employees on completion of 10/20/30 years of service without promotion. In short, the said Scheme is a Scheme for insitupromotion. The petitioner, on completion of his first 10 years of regular service, was granted the first financial upgradation under the MACPS, i.e. for completion of 10 years w.e.f. 01.01.2011 vide order dated 07.01.2013. The petitioner thereafter was entitled to the second financial upgradation w.e.f. 2021, which was denied to him.

4. The petitioner approached the concerned authorities and having not found a redressal for his grievances, has instituted the present proceeding.

5. Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner has been in continuous service w.e.f. the date of his initial joining, i.e. 20.04.1992, without any promotion being effected in his case and as such, applying the provisions of the MACPS, he was entitled to the financial upgradation flowing therefrom on completion of 10 years and 20 years of service, respectively. It is the contention of Mr. Sarmah that the first upgration although granted, the financial benefits thereon was withheld and the second financial upgradation was not granted to the petitioner.

6. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department submits that contradictory stands on behalf of the Director of Higher Education is available on record, which on one hand projects that there was a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension and the period of suspension was not regularized, whereas on the other hand, there is available on record an order dated 07.04.2014 by which a penalty of withholding of 1(one) annual increment was imposed upon the petitioner, followed by regularization of the period of suspension of the petitioner from 24.11.2012 to 03.04.2014 as on duty, which was, however, followed by a Corrigendum, wherein it was stated that in place of “24.11.2012”, the date “20.11.2012” was to be read in the said order dated 07.04.2014. Mr. Gogoi fairly submits that in view of the above position, it is the order dated 07.04.2014 (Annexure-12, Page 59 of the writ petition) that will hold the field and this Court may proceed to determine the rights of the petitioner basing thereon.

7. Mrs. D. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner was granted the first financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.11.2011. It is further contended that as the petitioner’s name did not figure in the list of persons found eligible for being extended with the benefits of the second financial upgradation on completion of 20 years of service after the matter was placed before the Director of Higher Education by the College Authorities, the said benefit could not be extended to him. Mrs. Borpujari