Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

The prayer in the present petition is to grant second Financial Upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme to the petitioner w.e.f. 26.09.2007 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, fixation etc.

The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cashier in the Departmental Canteen of Nuclear Power Board w.e.f. 26.9.1983. The petitioner was subsequently absorbed w.e.f. 1.10.1991. The petitioner was entitled for grant of the first and second Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completion of 10 years and 24 years respectively. After introduction of the said Scheme, the respondent Organization allowed the first Financial Upgradation to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.9.1995 on his completion of 12 years regular service counted from 26.9.1983. The petitioner completed 24 years of the regular service on 26.9.2007 and thus, became eligible for grant of second Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme. The petitioner was denied the second Financial Upgradation under the said Scheme. Aggrieved, he filed a representation before the Department. No response was received by the petitioner but apprehended that the same has been upheld for the reason that the charge-sheet dated 10.10.2007 was served upon the petitioner under Rule 14(3) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders (Central) Rules, 1946.

While praying for grant of second Financial Upgradation in spite of the charge-sheet, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ACP Scheme was introduced to remove the problem of stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of promotional avenues. The said benefit cannot be postponed or denied to the petitioner due to disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated after the date the same became due to him. In the present case, admittedly, on 26.9.2007, the date on which the petitioner became entitled for second Financial Upgradation, no disciplinary enquiry was pending against him. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 10.10.2007.

Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109 and in the case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1661 as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2010(3) CDR 1552 (Raj.) and in the case of Uma Shanker Kiradu Vs. State & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.926/2011), decided on 11.1.2012.

Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is contended that as per the office memorandum dated 14.9.1992, at the time of consideration of the cases of Government servant for promotion, the details with respect to Government servants under suspension; against whom charge-sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending; and Government Servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending, should be brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee and that in such cases, they shall not be promoted until they are completely exonerated of the charges; and in case, the same is received before the employees actually promoted, their case shall be deemed to have been placed in a sealed cover before the DPC. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in the present case, on the date when the DPC was held, a charge-sheet had already been issued to the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled for the second selection grade.

The facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the petitioner became eligible for the grant of second Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completion of 24 years of service i.e. on 26.9.2007. It is also not disputed that on the said date, no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in (1991) 4 Su