The denial of ACP benefits based on a blanket statement of unsatisfactory service is not sustainable. Eligibility for ACP benefits should be separately considered on completion of 10 years, 16 years, and 26 years of service.

JUDGMENT :

(C.M.A.No.2/2022)

1. Office has reported a delay of 46 days in filing the special appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned State Counsel. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the special appeal, we are satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.

3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.

Order on memo of Special Appeal

4. This special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court challenges an order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.13626 of 2019 filed by the appellant-petitioner claiming the benefit of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P) has been dismissed.

5. The appellant-petitioner had instituted the proceedings of the aforesaid writ petition challenging two orders passed on 22.09.2018 and 25.09.2018 whereby the matter relating to grant of certain post retirement benefits of the appellant-petitioner was disposed of, however, by the said order, his claim for grant of ACP and accordingly for fixing the last pay drawn and the pension payable to the appellant-petitioner has not been acceded to.

6. Learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 21.09.2022 has heavily relied upon the reasons indicated in the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur and has observed that on account of long absence from duty and also on account of various adverse material against the appellant-petitioner he has rightly been denied the benefit of ACP. Learned Single Judge has also permitted the appellant-petitioner to approach the concerned authority again in case he disputes the period of absence and he is able to produce relevant verifiable record from his service book to dispute the same.

7. Considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the records available before us on this special appeal.

8. The appellant-petitioner was initially engaged on the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari in stop-gap arrangement in the year 1983. He continued to serve in the said capacity, however, he instituted Writ Petition No.8563 (S/S) of 1988 and during the pendency of the said writ petition he was regularly appointed in the year 1988. After serving the respondents, he retired on 31.07.2016 on his attaining the age of superannuation. He instituted the writ petition No.13820 (S/S) of 2017 with the prayer that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to release the post retirement dues. The said writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge by means of an order dated 17.08.2017 with a direction to the respondents to release the entire outstanding retirement dues within a period of one month from the said date. Accordingly, certain dues to the appellant-petitioner were released, however, as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, his pension has not been fixed on the basis of last pay which he would have drawn had he been given the benefit of ACP. The claim of the appellant-petitioner for grant of ACP has been rejected by the District Panchayat Raj Officer by passing the order dated 22.09.2018. It is this order dated 22.09.2018 along with another order dated 25.09.2018, which is in the shape of corrigendum, was challenge before the learned Single Judge.

9. When we peruse the order dated 22.09.2018 read with the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, what we find is that it has been admitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer that the representation made by the appellant-petitioner, dated 03.02.2020 can be considered only on comparison of the information available in the original records/service book which was sent to the Additional Director (Treasury and Pension), Lucknow by means of the letter dated 22.05.2018.

10. Thus, it is clear that complete consideration of the claim of the appellant-pe