$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on : 27.07.2015

+

W.P.(C) 5595/2014

G.R. SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr S.R. Jolly, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through: Ms Abha Malhotra and Ms Veera Angrish,

Advs along with Mr A.K. Singh, Inspector, CISF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)

%

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of ACP benefits to him. He,

therefore, seeks a direction that the order dated 17.11.2012, which rejected the

representation, should be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to the

respondents to release the ACP benefits.

2.

The brief facts are that the petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security

Force (CISF) on 02.09.1975. He continued to serve the Force and retired on

31.03.2013 after competing 37 years of service. He contends that having

completed 12 years of service on 02.09.1987 and 24 years service on 01.09.1999

he was entitled to the grant of ACP benefits—First Financial Upgradation with

effect from 09.08.1999 and Second Financial Upgradation with effect from

01.09.1999 in terms of the Central Government’s Office Memorandum dated

09.08.1999, which conferred Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits to those

2015:DHC:5948-DB

who were unable to earn promotion in the normal course, according to the

Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that the Screening Committee, which

considers the suitability of candidates for ACP benefits had, in fact, recommended

the petitioner’s case in its meeting on 26.05.2000, subject to the rider that in case

there were disciplinary proceedings pending against him, the ACP benefits would

not be given. Later, however, the CISF, after considering the previous records,

especially the penalty order dated 27.01.2000, felt that ACP benefits could not be

granted. The petitioner was communicated this as well as the adverse remark

recorded, against which he represented to the concerned authorities. It is

contended that the said adverse remark was expunged. Learned counsel contends

that notwithstanding these developments, the respondents have unjustly denied

ACP benefits to him. He relies upon the conditions of the ACP Scheme of

09.8.1999 to say that intention of the authorities was to ensure that those deprived

or denied regular promotion due to lack of vacancies or other such conditions had

to be given career advancement as an incentive.

3.

The respondents in the counter-affidavit have denied the petitioner’s claim.

It is stated that the petitioner was imposed penalty under Rule 35 of the CISF

Rules on 27.01.2000 and that even though this aspect was ignored by the

Screening Committee on 26.05.2000 when it recommended release of ACP

benefits subsequently, the CISF, on consideration of the records, decided that the

petitioner was not yet fit.

4.

Resisting the claim, it is contended that one of the essential conditions for

grant of ACP is that the employee should be eligible for consideration in terms of

the existing Rules/policies. Stating that for promotion to the concerned higher

post, the individual had to possess at least 5 “Good” gradings in the preceding five

years, it is contended that the record of the petitioner did not entitle him to the

2015:DHC:5948-DB

benefits sought in these proceedings. The respondents submit that from the year

1996 to 2010, at no point of given time, did the petitioner possess consistent

“Good” gradings for five consecutive years. The respondents say that in the said

15 years’ period, the petitioner managed to secure only about 7 “Good” gradings.

It is also stated that the petitioner was awarded several penalties in his career.

They are detailed in the form of a chart, which is extracted below:

S.No. Brief of Misconduct

Punishment

awarded

Final order/service order

1. For

absenting

from

Parade.

Censure

S.O. Pa