Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... vs Rajendra Prasad Kuril (Dead) ... on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 76 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Govt. U.P. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad Kuril (Dead) Thru. Lrs Smt. Shanti And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- I.M. Pandey Ist
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2023:
1. Heard Mr. V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. I.M. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing special appeal.
3. The application is supported with an affidavit, in which the reasons for delay have been explained sufficiently.
4. Accordingly, application is allowed. Delay, if any, in moving special appeal is hereby condoned.
Order on memo of special appeal:
5. The appellants-State of U.P. has filed the instant intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, challenging the judgment and order dated 05.05.2022, passed by an Hon'ble Judge so far as it allows Writ-A No.5962 of 2017.
6. By means of the aforesaid judgment, two connected writ petitions were decided. Both the writ petitions had been filed challenging an order dated 01.10.2015, whereby the first assured career progression granted to the petitioners on 01.12.2008 counting their services with effect from 1998, had been modified by computing the period for grant of first A.C.P. from the date of their merger in the Directorate of Viklang Jan Vikas i.e. on 26.12.2006.
7. The respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the Department of Panchayati Raj, Kanpur by means of an order dated 23.06.1986. In the year 1998, the respondent no.1 was appointed on deputation on the post of Senior Clerk in the office of Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow. By means of an order dated 26.12.2006 the services of respondent no.1 were merged in the office of Director, Viklang Jan Vikas.
8. On 04.05.2010, a Government Order was issued introducing Assured Career Progression Scheme by providing three financial up-gradation on completion of 10 years, 18 years and 26 years of service from the date of initial appointment. By means of an order dated 27.11.2014 the respondent no.1 was granted the first A.C.P. with effect from 01.12.2008 by counting ten years' service from the date of his initial appointment. However, on 04.08.2015, the Government issued another order directing the Director, Viklang Jan Vikas to withdraw the continuation of A.C.P. to certain officers named in the order, including the respondent no.1, and it was directed that the officers were entitled to get A.C.P. by taking into account their services from the date of their merger with the Department i.e. from the year 2006. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent no.1 by filing Writ-A No.5962 of 2017.
9. The Hon'ble Single Judge held that the petitioner was already in service of the State Government when he was appointed on deputation in the year 1998. However, as he was appointed on deputation on a higher pay scale/grade pay, he was not entitled to the first A.C.P. Since the petitioner continued with the Director, Viklang Jan Vikas on the same post without there was any subsequent promotion he was entitled to the second and the third A.C.P. keeping his services rendered on deputation with the department as provided under Paragraph 2 (vi) and (viii) of the Government Order. The Hon'ble Single Judge has accordingly held that "having regard to the conditions stipulated in the Government Order dated 4 May 2010, the petitioners are entitled to second and third A.C.P. on computing their services from the date of their respective recruitment on deputation since 1998 and not from the date of their merger with the respondent department in 2006."
10. Assailing the aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge Mr. V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Clause 11 of the Government Order dated 05.11.2014 provides that for computing regular satisfactory service for granting financial up-gradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme, the services rendered on deputation, after joining the department only has to be taken into consideration for computing the service for grant of A.C.P. and service rendered prior to the employee coming into employment of the department, cannot be taken into consideration for award of A.C.P.
11. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel and also gone through the records of this special appeal.
12. In regard to the aforesaid submissions, the provision contained in Clause 9 of the aforesaid Government Order has to be taken into consideration, which provides that regular service rendered by an employee in any other government department will be taken into consideration for grant of financial up-gradation. It further provides that in such matters, the consideration of award of A.C.P. will be made only after successful completion of probation period in the Government Department but in the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent no.1 was put in probation or that he did not complete the period of probation satisfactorily as per the provision contained in Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 05.11.2014. The respondent no.1 was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Department of Panchayati Raj, Kanpur, which is a Department of the State Government and thereafter in the year 1998 he was sent on deputation to the Department of Viklang Jan Vikas, U.P. where his services was absorbed under Rule 18 (A) of U.P. Handicapped Welfare Department Clerical Cadre Services (First Amendment) Rules, 2006. Therefore, as per the provisions contained in Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 05.11.2014, the services rendered by the respondent no.1 in the Department of Panchayati Raj have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting him the benefit of A.C.P.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are in agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge that the respondent no.1 is entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P. by taking into consideration the services rendered by him since his initial appointment.Therefore, the special appeal lacks merit, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
Ram.
