Rameshwar Singh & Others vs Union Of India & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 4825 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P. (C.) Nos.4578-79/2006

%                        Date of Decision: 25.11.2009

Rameshwar Singh & Others                             .... Petitioners
                   Through Mr.A.K. Trivedi, Advocate

                                 Versus

Union of India & Others                                   .... Respondents
                     Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                   NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in               NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioners have impugned the order dated 13th December,

2005 in OA No.2674 of 2005, Rameshwar Singh and Others v. Union of

India and Others declining the petitioners' claim for directions to the

respondents to grant the benefit of ACP Scheme to the petitioners by

granting second financial up-gradation with all consequential benefits

including the arrears of difference of pay and allowance with interest.

The petitioners had sought for a direction for quashing of

clarification No.53 issued by DOP&T vide OM dated 18th July, 2001. By

the said clarification, it was stated that only those employees who fulfill

all promotional norms are eligible to be considered for benefit under

ACPS. It was clarified that if recruitment rules for promotion to the

next higher grade, including the higher/additional educational

qualifications are required or prescribed, the employee would need to

possess or meet those higher/additional educational qualifications to

avail financial up-gradation under the Assured Career Progression

Scheme. The Tribunal while considering the plea of the petitioners had

relied on a Full Bench decision of State Tribunal at Chandigarh which

has dealt with the questions, whether a person for getting the financial

up-gradation under the ACP Scheme to the next higher grade/scale is

required to possess educational qualifications required for

appointment/promotion to the next higher post/grade which is to be

given under the ACP Scheme as a financial up-gradation.

The Full Bench had held that for grant of financial up-gradation

under the ACP Scheme to the next higher grade/scale, an employee is

required to possess the educational qualification required for

appointment/promotion to the next higher grade carrying the same

scale.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the ACP

Scheme is to deal with genuine stagnation and hardship faced by

employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues and

consequently higher educational qualification or other requirements are

not to be fulfilled.

The plea of the petitioners is contrary to the object of the ACP

Scheme. Under the ACP Scheme, an up-gradation is to be granted only

if an employee is eligible for promotion, however, on account of

stagnation, adequate promotional avenues are not available. Assured

Career Progression Scheme, however, does not entitle a person to the

next promotion despite not having eligibility qualification or possessing

the educational qualification or other requirements for promotions.

The ACP Scheme gives relief to those who are eligible but who do not get

promotion on account of stagnation or other similar reasons, however,

under the ACP Scheme an employee who is not eligible for promotion

does not become eligible for promotion despite not having the requisite

qualification. Such a plea is apparently contrary to very basic objective

of scheme and such a plea of the petitioners, cannot be accepted

In the circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal declining the

claim of the petitioners for up-gradation under the ACP Scheme as they

are not eligible for promotion cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for

the petitioner has failed to show any error or illegality in the decision of

the Tribunal which will entail interference by this Court in exercise of

its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ

petition, in the facts and circumstances, is without any merit and it is,

therefore, dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

November 25, 2009                                      VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'Dev'