Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Chandrapal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ A. No.19066 Of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2024
MANDAMUS - ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION - GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 05.11.2014, OFFICE ORDER NO. G-183/ESTT.-03 - The court discussed the principles governing Assured Career Progression (ACP) and the distinction between ACP and annual increments. It highlighted that ACP is a remedy for stagnation in service and is not automatically granted upon retirement. The court emphasized that entitlement to ACP must be assessed based on the employee's status at the time of the claim, which in this case was after the petitioner's retirement. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the third ACP as he had retired before it became due.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who served as an Assistant Boring Technician and later as a Junior Engineer, sought a mandamus for his third Assured Career Progression (ACP) after completing 26 years of service. He claimed entitlement based on a government order and argued that he was denied the ACP due to his retirement just before it was due.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the petitioner was entitled to the third ACP based on his service record, the timing of his retirement meant he could not claim it. The court distinguished between ACP and annual increments, stating that ACP is not automatically granted upon retirement.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the third ACP despite retiring one day before it became due, and the applicability of the principle of notional increments to ACP.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that entitlement to ACP must be assessed based on the employee's status at the time of the claim. The principle of notional increments applicable to annual increments does not extend to ACP, which is a remedy for stagnation and not a right that accrues upon retirement.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to the third ACP as he had retired before it was due.
JUDGMENT :
(J.J. Munir, J.) :
1. This writ petition prays that a mandamus be issued to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Wing, Hapur to sanction for the petitioner his third assured career progression.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Boring Technician on 16.02.1986 in the office of the Chief Development Officer, Meerut vide letter dated 12.02.1986. He superannuated on 31.10.2019 from the post of a Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation, posted at Hapur. The first Assured Career Progression (for short, 'ACP') was granted to the petitioner on completion of 14 years' satisfactory service and the first financial up-gradation was fixed on 01.11.2001. The second ACP was sanctioned and granted on 01.11.2009 upon completion of 16 years' satisfactory service. The second financial up-gradation was determined in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800/- with a grade pay of Rs.4600/-. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Department of Irrigation issued an office order No. G-183/Estt.-03 (appointment post) 2018-19 dated 29.06.2018, promoting the petitioner from the post of a Boring Technician to that of a Junior Engineer. According to the petitioner, in terms of the rules applicable, he was entitled to a third ACP on 05.11.2014 upon completion of 26 years of satisfactory service, which he did complete on 31.10.2019. The third financial up-gradation would place him in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800/-, with a grade pay of Rs.4800/-. The petitioner acknowledges that he was promoted by the Chief Engineer on 29.06.2018 from the post of a Boring Technician to a Junior Engineer, carrying Pay Band-II, Level-VI, analogous to the pay- scale of Rs.9300-34800/-, grade pay of Rs.4200/-. The revised pay-matrix for Level-VI carries the pay scale of Rs.35400- 112400/- with a probation period of two years. The petitioner says that he has been deprived of his third ACP, ignoring his satisfactory service, which employees junior to the petitioner have been extended by office order dated 26.04.2023. The petitioner has completed 26 years' satisfactory service, entitling him to the third ACP, that has fallen due on 31.10.2019, as already said. There being inaction in the matter of award of the third ACP, the petitioner represented the matter both to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Wing, Hapur, but to no avail. The petitioner buttresses his claim to the third ACP at the end of the 26 years of satisfactory service, relying upon a Government Order dated 05.11.2014. There is a mention of this order in paragraph No.10 of the writ petition, but no copy thereof has been annexed.
3. This Court on 16.11.2023 issued notice of motion to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Wing, Hapur, requiring them to show cause by their separate affidavits within a week why the petitioner's third ACP had not been granted. In compliance, the Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer, respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively, filed their affidavits, both dated 22.11.2023. These affidavits have been treated as counter affidavits. The petitioner has not filed a rejoinder. On the 24th of November, 2023, parties having exchanged pleadings, this petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved.
4. Heard Mr. Rampyare Lal Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P., Lucknow, the relevant facts brought out are that the petitioner was appointed an Assistant Boring Technician on 17.02.1986 by the Chief Development Officer, Meerut vide h
The court established that Assured Career Progression (ACP) is distinct from annual increments, and entitlement to ACP is contingent upon the employee being in service at the time it becomes due.
The adoption of government orders for ACP entitlements requires compliance with the specified dates of entitlement, overriding arbitrary cut-off dates set by the employer.
The court ruled that employees who have not received promotions are entitled to ACP-II and MACP-III benefits, despite clarifications suggesting otherwise.
The applicant is entitled to ACP and MACP benefits despite prior promotions since non-beneficial promotions do not negate financial upgradation under the schemes.
An employee's entitlement to ACP cannot be negated by a subsequent integrity report; assessments must consider records up to the completion of the stipulated service duration.
Promotion – An employee who has opted to remain in existing grade, by refusing offer of promotion, forfeits rights to ACP benefits and such employee, on account of refusal, can be considered for regu....
MES Procedure Exam not mandatory for ACP; uncommunicated below-benchmark ACRs cannot deny financial upgradation; 3rd MACP admissible on 30 years service completion post 2nd ACP.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
