Union Of India & Ors vs B.S. Saxena
2010 Latest Caselaw 673 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  R.P.No.208/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 7091 OF 2009


%                                            Date of Decision: 5th February, 2010

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                . .Petitioners/Non-respondent.

                              through:             Mr. B.K. Berera, Advocate

                                          VERSUS

B.S. SAXENA                                  . . . Respondent /Review Petitioner

                              through :            In person.


CORAM :-

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

         1.    Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
               to see the Judgment?
         2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?
         3.    Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral)

1. This review petition is filed by the review petitioner (respondent in

the Writ Petition and hereinafter referred to as 'review petitioner') seeking

review of the judgment dated 9th May, 2008. Vide that judgment, this

Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and as a consequence allowed the

Writ Petition of Union of India and dismissed the O.A. filed by the

respondent.

2. The submission of the review petitioner, who appears in person,

that notwithstanding the fact that he was convicted by the trial court, he

was entitled to benefit of one upgradation under the ACP scheme as he

had completed twelve years of service in the existing grade much before

the conviction and, therefore, as on that day he was entitled to the said

upgradation. This contention of the respondent is totally misconceived.

No doubt, he was appointed on 1st June, 1979 and he had completed

twelve years of service on 1st June, 1999. However, ACP scheme was not

in existence at that time and it was introduced only in the year 1999.

Therefore, the case of the respondent, in terms of the said scheme, was to

be considered in the light of the position of the assessee as on the date of

the introduction of the scheme. However, on that date a criminal case,

arising out of FIR bearing number 151/1994 dated 13th July, 1994, was

pending against him under Section 420/468/471 IPC. Due to the

pendency of this case, the respondent could not have been considered for

grant of ACP benefit. The said case resulted in his conviction vide

judgment dated 22nd September, 2004. It is because of these reasons, in

the judgment dated 2nd March, 2009 this Court held that there was no

question of granting even first ACP benefit to the respondent/review

petitioner.

3. Thus, we find no merit in this review petition and the same is

dismissed accordingly.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2010.

nsk