IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 7254 of 2010

Date of decision: 10.11.2010

Sita Rani

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

for the State.

*****

RANJIT SINGH J.

Prayer made in the writ petition is for grant of retiral

benefits after grant of ACP to the petitioner. In the written statement,

stand taken by the State is that the petitioner had foregone the

promotion and, therefore, is not entitled to grant of ACP grade.

Otherwise, it is stated that the pension of the petitioner has been re-

fixed as per Annexure R-IV.

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to

Division Bench judgments by this Court Annexures P-7 and P-8,

whereby the issue in regard to denial of ACP on account of person

having foregone the promotion has been settled. It is held that refusal

to avail promotion would not entail the consequences of forfeiture of

proficiency step up or Assured Career Progression. Against this

judgment, the State had filed SLP, which is also dismissed.

Even the review of the petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court which is also dismissed. That being the legal position, the

Civil Writ Petition No. 7254 of 2010

-2-

petitioner would be entitled to grant of ACP and re-fixation of his

pension by taking this aspect into consideration.

The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with

the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner

for grant of ACP in the light of law laid down by this Court and upheld

by the Hon'ble Supreme Count. The pension of the petitioner shall

also had to be refixed after refixing his pay.

The petitioner may make a representation in regard to his

claim for grant of Prabhakar scale as made in the petition. The same

shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate order

passed thereon. If the petitioner left with any grievance, she would be

at liberty to take any legal remedy available to her. Let this exercise

be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

November 10, 2010

( RANJIT SINGH )

rts

JUDGE