Back
2018 Supreme(UK) 305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Tarabuddin – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 658 of 2018
Decided On : 20-06-2018
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Mrs. Indu Sharma, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to employee benefits, such as ACPs, should be based on the proper application of Government orders and the employee's service records, and the denial of such benefits should be supported by valid and non-contradictory reasons.
Headnote:
ACP Denial - Employee Benefits - Government Order No. 872/XXVII/(7)/2011 dated 08.03.2011, G.O. 589/xxvii(7)40(ix) 2011 dated 11.07.2013, G.O. dated 01.07.2013 - The court discussed the implications of the Government orders related to the payment of the benefit of the ACPs and the entitlement of employees to receive benefits enforced w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The court highlighted the requirement of satisfactory completion of 10, 16 & 26 years of continuous service for the payment of ACPs and emphasized the expunction of adverse entries and their impact on the entitlement of ACPs. The court also considered the amendment in G.O. dated 08.03.2011 brought into effect by subsequent G.O. dated 01.07.2013 and the lack of adverse findings after the grant of 2nd ACP till the employee became eligible for the grant of 3rd ACP in 2015.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was denied the payment of the benefit of the 3rd ACP, which he contended he was entitled to receive based on the Government orders. The denial was based on adverse entries which the petitioner claimed had been expunged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of the 3rd ACP based on adverse entries was contradictory and not supported by the service records. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the 3rd ACP and directed the respondent to sanction the benefit and pay all its arrears.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of the 3rd ACP, the impact of expunction of adverse entries, and the proper application of the Government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of the 3rd ACP based on adverse entries was unfounded and contradictory, and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit based on the Government orders and his service records.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondent to sanction the benefit of 3rd ACP to the petitioner and pay all its arrears within six weeks.
By virtue of the impugned order under challenge in the Writ Petition i.e. dated 10.10.2017, there happens to be a denial of the payment of the benefit of the 3rd ACP, which the petitioner contends that he was otherwise entitled to receive in view of the implications as contained in the Government Order No. 872/XXVII/(7)/2011 dated 08.03.2011, which has been denied by the impugned order, based upon the fact of taking into consideration the previous adverse entries which already stood expunged.
2. Briefly put the facts of the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as a regular Conductor with the respondent-Transport Corporation, as back as, on 01.05.1989. Petitioner supports his case for the grant of benefits of 3rd ACP based on the Government order dated 08.03.2011. The Government Order dated 08.03.2011 was later on awarded by G.O. 589/xxvii(7)40(ix) 2011 dated 11.07.2013, which was ensuring the entitlement of employee to receive benefits enforced w.e.f. 01.01.2006, to that extent it awarded the G.O. dated 01.07.2013. The Government order dated 01.07.2013 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition), which in its paragraph-2 sub para-1 provides for the payment of the benefit of the ACPs on satisfactory completion of 10, 16 & 26 years of continuous service. Relevant part of the Government order dated 01.07.2013 is quoted here under:
^^2-¼1½ jktdh; deZpkfj;ksa dks ,0lh0ih0 dh orZeku O;oLFkk] ftlds vUrxZr lh/kh HkrhZ ds fdlh in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls Øe’k% 10] 18 ,oa 26 o”kZ dh vuojr ,oa lUrks”ktud lsok ds vk/kkj ij izFke] f}rh; ,oa r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds ykHk dfri; izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu vuqeU; fd;s x;s gSa] ds LFkku ij Øe’k% 10] 16] ,oa 26 o”kZ dh vuojr ,oa lUrks”ktud lsok ds vk/kkj ij izFke] f}rh; ,oa r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds ykHk fuEufyf[kr izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu vuqeU; fd;s tk;saxs vkSj rn~uqlkj mi;qZDr ’kklukns’k fnukad 08-03-2011 dk izLrj&1¼2½1 ,oa ’kklukns’k la0 313@xxvii¼7½40(ix) xxvii@2011 fnukad 30 vDVwcj] 2012 dk izLrj&2¼2½ la’kksf/kr le>k tk;sxkA**
3. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is already the recipient of the first ACP payable on 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service and the second ACP which was payable on 16 years of continuous satisfactory service has also been paid to him. Under the same chronology and parameters as arises from same G.O. dated 08.03.2011 the entitlement for the payment of third ACP would only be accruing on rendering continuous and satisfactory services for 26 years from date of regular appointment.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Neetu Singh, is that after having been regularly appointed on 01.05.1989, he would be completing 26 years of satisfactory service in 2015 and, hence, his entitlement for third ACP would accrue and mature for third ACP only in 2015, under the Government order dated 01.07.2013. The same has not been remitted to him, hence, the petitioner had filed various representations before the respondent for the grant of benefit of the third ACP and grade pay of Rs. 4200/- because the juniors to the petitioner in the same grade pay has already been paid grade pay of Rs. 4200/- admissible for third ACP.
5. The respondent no. 4 on considering the representation of the petitioner had rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 10.10.2017. By virtue of the impugned order under challenge in the Writ Petition rejection is based on the ground of entries in the service which were recorded prior to grant of second ACP benefit and also based on the entries, which as per petitioner stood expunged. The seven grounds derived for denial of third ACP related to the following effect:
^^bl laca/k esa vkidks voxr djkuk gS fd vkidh fu;qfDr ifjogu fuxe esa ifjpkyd ds in ij fnukad 01-05-1989 dks gfj}kj fMiks esa gqà gS ,oa fu;qfDr ds mijkUr vkidks fuEufyf[kr n.M ikfjr fd, x;s gSa&
1- {ks=h; izcU/kd nsgjknwu ds dk;kZy; vkns’k la[;k 5058 fnukad 11-06-1996 ds vUrxZr nks okf”kZd osru o`f);ka fcuk Hkkoh i
