Point of Law: ACPS reveals that annual increment shall not be considered as financial upgradation for purpose of benefit, if any, under ACPS.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 18.5.2016 issued under the signatures of Additional Director, Treasuries, Accounts & Lotteries, Shimla, H.P (Annexure A-4) whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner herein for grant of benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘ACPS’) came to be rejected, petitioner approached erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.294 of 2018, which now on account of abolishment of Tribunal stands transferred to this Court and the same has been re-registered bearing CWPOA No.5952 of 2020, praying therein for following substantive reliefs:-

a. The office order of rejection dated 18.5.2016 vide Annexure A/4 be quashed/set aside.

b. The Annexure A/5 and A/6, the notifications dated 7.7.2014 and 9.9.2014 respectively be declared null and void in respect of the applicant and be quashed accordingly to that extent.

c. The respondents be directed to consider the name of the applicant for the grant of 4-9-14 time scale/enhancement and release the second time scale increment/enhancement or benefits under New ACP Scheme of 4-9-14 to the applicant on completion of nine years service at par with her counterparts in sequel to Annexure A/7.

d. If the applicant is fallen due to the third time scale enhancement under the New ACP Scheme of 4-9-14, the respondents further be directed to release the same to the applicant forthwith alongwith arrears thereof.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 24.10.1989 in the Department of Treasuries, Accounts & Lotteries, Shimla, H.P, in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800. On 1.11.1994, petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk, as a result of which, she came to be entitled to the pay scale 1200-2130 w.e.f. 1.11.1994 and her pay was fixed at Rs.1200/-. Subsequently, on account of pay revision, pay scale of Rs.1200-2130 was revised to Rs.4020-6200, as a result of which, the petitioner was fixed at Rs.4400/- instead of Rs.4020/-, vide Government of Himachal Pradesh Finance (Pay Revision) Department Notification No.FIN-(PR)B (7)-1/98-II, dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure R-1). On 1.11.2002, petitioner was granted first benefit under old ACPS i.e. 8-16-24-32. On 9.8.2012, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Pay Revision) Department, vide communication (Annexure A/2) replaced the old ACPS retrospectively from 27.8.2009 (on notional basis till 9.8.2012 and on actual basis w.e.f. 9.8.2012) with the new one called 4-9-14. Pursuant to the provision contained in the new ACPS, petitioner gave an undertaking dated 24.8.2012 and opted out for new ACPS i.e. 4-9-14. The representation filed by the petitioner to grant the benefit of ACPS came to be rejected vide communication dated 18.5.2016 issued under the signatures of Department of Treasuries, Accounts & Lotteries, Shimla, wherein authorities concerned by merely giving reference of Notification dated 7th July, 2014 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, held the petitioner not entitled for the benefit of ACPS.

3. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner approached erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs reproduced hereinabove.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record, especially reply filed by the respondents/State, this Court finds that facts of the case as noticed hereinabove are not in dispute. Precisely, the case of the respondent is that the petitioner has been already given three financial up-gradations, under ACPS and as such, present petition deserves dismissal.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the financial upgradations/enhancement, if any, on account of the pay revision cannot be counted towards the benefit, if any, under ACPS, rather for that purpose three clear cut financial up-gradations are required to be g