ORDER

Date : 28-03-2022 Heard Mr. A.M.S. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.

Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner’s case is that though the petitioner has been working as a Chainman, Grade-IV for more than 30 years, no promotional avenue has been provided to the petitioner, though the petitioner can be considered for promotion to the post of Section Assistant.

3. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam submits that the post of Chainman is not the feeder post for promotion to the post of Section Assistant under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Silchar Water Resources Division and therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of Section Assistant from the present post. He further submits that as the petitioner cannot be promoted to any higher post, the petitioner was granted financial up-gradation in terms of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The first financial up-gradation was granted to the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2011, while the second financial up-gradation was granted w.e.f

01.01.2017 in terms of the Notification dated 06.07.2017, issued vide under No.FPC/2/2017/4 by the Government of Assam in the Finance Department (PRU).

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The Govt. of Assam, Finance (Pay Research Unit), Department issued Notification No. FPC 109/2010/42 dated 25.05.2011, by which the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) was introduced. The scheme known as the ACPS involves 2 financial up-gradations for employees of the Govt. of Assam, once after completion of 10 years of service and second, after completion of 24 years of service, if they do not get 1 regular promotion within the first 10 years of regular service and 2 regular promotions within 24 years of service. As can be seen from the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, the petitioner has already been granted 2 (two) financial up-gradations in pursuance to the ACPS. Further, as there are no promotional avenues for the petitioner, there is nothing left to decide in the present writ petition. The above being said, the fact remains that no promotional avenue has been provided to the petitioner.

6. In the case of V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. -vs- State of A.P. and Ors, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 401, the Apex Court has held that it would be in the interest of the administration to have a channel of promotion for every service so as to avoid stagnation at a particular level, subject however to the condition that the incumbents of a service are otherwise qualified to shoulder the responsibilities of the higher promotional post.

7. In the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh -vs- Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 519, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly.

8. The Apex Court in various cases has held that Assured Career Progression Schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes, devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief from stagnation, in the form of financial benefits. It is also intended to ensure that the employees are adequately incentivized to work efficiently despite not getting promotion for want of promotional avenue.

9. The ASPC is a matter of Government policy and the petitioner has been given the benefits in terms of the ACPS, in lieu of there being no avenue for promotion.

10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to exercise it’s discretion in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant