Retired employees are entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme from the date of re-musteration, as it is not considered a promotion.

JUDGMENT :

(HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.)

[WP(C) Nos.8633/2020, 5516/2021, 22056/2020, 22031/2020, 28860/2019]

The petitioners in these connected writ petitions were working with the Assam Rifles and have retired from the said service. They have approached this Court through the afore- mentioned writ petitions seeking a declaration that they are entitled to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “ACP Scheme”) with effect from the dates on which they were re mustered as Havildar/Cipher.

2. The short facts as culled out from W.P(C) No.8633 of 2020 are as under:

The petitioner states that he got enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 15.10.1984 and re-mustered as Havildar/Cipher with effect from 06.02.1988. He was voluntarily discharged from the Assam Rifles on 01.07.2005. The Government of India, it is stated, had introduced the ACP Scheme granting financial upgradation at an interval of 12/24 years in a grade. The petitioner contends that he was entitled for the financial upgradation under the afore scheme on completion of 12/24 years with effect from the date of re-musteration, since the re- musteration cannot be considered to be a promotion so as to disentitle him from the benefits of the ACP Scheme. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P1 order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench wherein the same issue was considered holding that re-musteration as Cipher, can only be treated as an entry into the service and hence the incumbents would be entitled to the benefit of financial upgradation on completion of 12 years service from the date of entry as Havildar/Cipher. The order at Ext.P1 was challenged before this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment, the challenge was repelled, upholding the findings in Ext.P1. Hence, the petitioner contends that he is also entitled for the benefit of the 1^st financial upgradation on completion of 12 years from the date of re-musteration as Havildar/Cipher.

3. In the meantime, the ACP Scheme was replaced by a modified scheme-MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008, extending financial upgradations at the intervals of 10/20/30 years. Here also the respondents took up the stand that the appointment as Havildar/Cipher is to be treated as the 1^st financial upgradation and therefore, the benefits are to be extended only accordingly.

4. The afore-stand was challenged before the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, and by Ext.P3 judgment, the court refused to accept the case projected by the respondents- Assam Rifles. The judgment at Ext.P3 is confirmed by the Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court through Ext.P4 judgment and upheld by the Apex Court also as seen from Ext.P6 order dated 04.09.2015, refusing to grant leave to appeal. To the same effect is the subsequent judgment of the Meghalaya High Court at Ext.P7. Later, by Ext.P9 to Ext.P11, it is stated that the benefits as above were extended to the petitioner under the afore schemes offering extending financial upgradations. The petitioner, in such circumstances, contends that he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.7535 of 2019, and by Ext.P13 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to extend the benefits of ACP/MACP Schemes as has been granted to the serving employee within a time frame. But the petitioner contends that Ext.P15 was later served upon him by the 4th respondent herein dated 28.01.2020, whereby instead of granting the benefits of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, the petitioner was granted “promotion” to the rank of Warrant Officer/Cipher with effect from 10.10.1997, with reference to certain findings contained in the judgment of Meghalaya High Court.

5. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking the reliefs noticed above.

6. I have heard Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Dayasindhu Sreehari. N.S, the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents herein.

7. O