IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
HAV/CIPH Abdul Bari (S/356033w) - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 256 (SH) of 2012
Decided on : 10-04-2013
Financial Upgradation - Service Matter - ACP Scheme - Para 3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated August, 1999 - Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1 and 5.2 of the Annexure-II - Re-musteration to Cipher Trade i.e. Havildar/Cipher is not a promotion and not a financial up-gradation - Judgment of the CAT in Sentimon Mathew vs. Union of India - Judgment of the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) - Internal communication and the office note cannot be the order issued by the competent authority - settled principle as to how the judgment and order is to be read
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Havildar/Cipher, sought financial up-gradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) and the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The dispute arose from the interpretation of the ACP Scheme and whether re-musteration to Cipher Trade i.e. Havildar/Cipher constituted a promotion or financial up-gradation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that re-musteration to Cipher Trade i.e. Havildar/Cipher was not a promotion or financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme. The judgment of the CAT in Sentimon Mathew vs. Union of India and the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) supported this finding.
Issues: The main issues were whether re-musteration to Cipher Trade i.e. Havildar/Cipher constituted a promotion or financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that re-musteration to Cipher Trade i.e. Havildar/Cipher did not constitute a promotion or financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme, based on the judgments of the CAT and the Kerala High Court.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to grant the 2nd financial up-gradation under the MACPS on the completion of 20 years in service as Havildar/Cipher w.e.f. 20.11.2011 and the 1st financial up-gradation should be from 20.11.2003 with consequential benefits. The impugned order dated 12.07.2012 was quashed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2009 was modified to the extent that the 1st financial up-gradation should be w.e.f. 20.11.2003.
JUDGMENT :
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. N Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. SC Shyam, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No. 1-6. The petitioner has been serving as Havildar/Cipher from 20.11.1991. In this writ petition, he prays for a direction to the respondents to grant him the 2nd financial up-gradation by counting his continuous service as Havildar/Cipher from 20.11.1991 under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short "MACPS") dated 18.09.2009 and also for a direction to the respondents to grant the first ACP to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.11.2003 and also for quashing the impugned order dated 07.10.2009 for granting the First financial benefits w.e.f. 03.11.2007 and also the impugned letter dated 12.07.2012 that the musteration is a method of appointment in RRs and it would be counted as up-gradation for the purpose of MACPS and the 1st ACP granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 03.11.2007 will be treated as 2nd financial up-gradation and as for granting of 3rd financial up-gradation to the petitioner, it will be considered and granted on completion of 30 years qualifying service and other conditions as required.
2. Factual backgrounds:--
3. Para 3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated August, 1999 reads as follows:--
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1962 Supp (3) SCR 713 : AIR 1963 SC 395
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697
State of Bihar and Others v. Kripalu Shankar and Others reported in (1987) 3 SCC 34
State of W.B. & Anr. Vs. M.R. Mondal & Anr. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 443
Tagin Litin Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1996) 5 SCC 83
State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas reported in (2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 122
Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 422
Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda reported in (2004) 3 SCC 75 : 2004 SCC(Cri) 662
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.