Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Suman Kumar Negi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 904 of 2021
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Mandamus - Assured Career Progression - Government Orders 08.03.2011, 30.11.2011 - The court interpreted the Government Orders regarding ACP entitlements, emphasizing that the adoption of these orders by the respondent corporation mandates payment from the date of entitlement, not a later cut-off date.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Computer Operator, sought the 2nd and 3rd Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits from the date of entitlement, claiming the respondent corporation adopted relevant government orders for ACP payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent corporation's cut-off date for ACP payments was unreasonable and that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits from the date specified in the government orders.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the 2nd and 3rd ACP benefits from the date of entitlement as per the government orders adopted by the respondent corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the adoption of government orders by the corporation obligates it to grant ACP benefits from the date of entitlement, rejecting the arbitrary cut-off date imposed by the respondent.
Result: The writ petition is allowed; the respondent is mandated to grant ACP benefits from the date of entitlement and pay arrears within one year.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought an indulgence of this Court in the nature of the mandamus commanding the respondents, in particular respondent no.2, to grant benefit of the 2nd ACP and 3rd ACP to the petitioner, from the date of his entitlement i.e. with effect from 08.10.2009, and arrears to be paid within a reasonable period, decided by this Court.
2. The facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details are that the petitioner is working with the respondent no.2, as Senior Computer Operator. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.2, has adopted the Government Order dated 08.03.2011, Annexure No.4, to the writ petition, whereby the State Government has made arrangements for payment of the Assured Career Progression to the employees of the State Government. It is provided in the said Government Order that the ACP would be admissible to the employees of the State Government, after completion of the regular, continuous and satisfactory services of 10, 18 and 26 years accordingly.
3. The arrangement for payment of the ACP was also made applicable to the employees of the Public Corporations and Undertakings by issuance of the further Government Order dated 30.11.2011, Annexure No.7, to the writ petition, whereby the said benefits were made admissible, and available to the employees of the Corporation like the Corporation/respondent no.2, in which the petitioner is also working.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Data Punch Operator to the post of Computer Operator on 08.10.2003. Since the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Computer Operator on 08.10.2003, he is entitled to get the 2nd ACP after six years (ten years from the date of his initial appointment), and he is entitled to get the same on 08.10.2009.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that after the grant of the 2nd ACP, the petitioner is entitled to get the 3rd ACP, after completion of the eight years service from the date of grant of 2nd ACP or 26 years of service, whichever is earlier as per proviso second to clause 2 (i) d of Government Order 08.03.2011 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition).
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Government Orders by which the ACP(s) were granted to the State Government employees was adopted by the respondent no.2, vide order dated 15.12.2012, and accordingly the petitioner is also entitled for 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP, as per the Government Orders dated 30.11.2011, 08.03.2011, and which have been adopted by the respondent no.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non payment of the 2nd and 3rd ACP.
7. Respondent no.2, has filed its counter affidavit, and in the counter affidavit, the liability to pay the 2nd and 3rd ACP to the petitioner is admitted by the respondents with the caveat that the ACP would be admissible and payable to the petitioner only with effect from 30.11.2011. It is further submitted by the respondent no.2, in its counter affidavit that due to the financial constraints of the respondent/Corporation the payment of arrears shall be made on the priority basis, as has been decided by the respondent No.2 in its Board Meeting held on 24.12.2020, whereby priority is given first to the deceased employees, then retired and thereafter to employees in service.
8. The rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit is filed by the petitioner in which he has reiterated the contention as made in the writ petition, and this much has been clarified that the cut-off date fixed for the petitioner by the respondent no.2 for entitlement i.e. 30.11.2011, is incorrect and unreasonable simply for the reason that the Government Order itself speaks about the entitlement of the employees to receive the ACP with effect from 01.09.2008, or from the date of their entitlement.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
10. I have perused pleadings of the parties i
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the regular service for the purpose of ACP benefits should commence from the date of absorption, as per the MACP Scheme.
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 delay in meeting promotion benchmarks and adverse gradings in ACRs justified the grant of 2nd ACP w.e.f. September 1, 2010 and the denial of the 3rd MACP.
Financial benefits under the ACP Scheme must be given from the date the government employee becomes entitled, irrespective of any vacancy occurring in the past. Allegations of misconduct must be supp....
Employees completing 24 years service before 31.08.2008 entitled to 2nd ACP in GP Rs.2400/- in promotional hierarchy post pay merger, ignoring prior identical upgradations, followed by 3rd MACP in GP....
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
