Delhi High Court
Gyan Prakash vs Uoi And Ors. on 8 October, 2015
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08.10.2015
+ W.P.(C) 3982/2011
GYAN PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate
versus
UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr.B.K.Raut, Pairvi Cell, CRPF
Mr.S.S.Sejwal, Law officer, CRPF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for
Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme benefit of
third financial upgradation by the respondents.
2. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner joined
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 04.02.1975 and was
subsequently promoted as Naik on 14.06.1988. He was later
promoted as Havildar/carpenter on 11.05.1991. It is stated that the
petitioner - with the advent of the Assured Career Progression
Scheme (ACP) - with effect from 09.08.1999 claimed financial
upgradation benefits under it contending that he was entitled to them.
W.P.(C) No.3982/2011 Page 1
He was however unsuccessful in persuading the respondents to give
such benefits. Eventually, he retired from services on 31.08.2008
after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner claims that
he is entitled to the third financial upgradation in terms of the MACP
since he had completed 30 years of service and that unfortunately his
denial on account of his superannuation on 31.08.2008 is arbitrary. In
support of the submissions, petitioner's counsel relies upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported as R. L. Marwaha vs. Union
of India & Others 1987 (4) SCC 31 where under somewhat similar
circumstances, discrimination on the basis of the date of formulation
of the scheme/rule with respect to calculation of qualifying service for
pension was held to be unjustified. Learned counsel also relied upon
Kishan Lal Kalal vs. State of Bihar and Others 1990 (Supp) SCC
165.
3. The basic premise of the ACP Scheme - the first of its kind
formulated on 01.08.1999 is that the concerned official/employee is
unable to secure any promotion during his entire career span. To
avoid stagnation and frustration, the central government directed that
in such cases - where the employee does not get any promotional
benefit in accordance with its existing and applicable recruitment
rules and policies, complete 12 years and 24 years respectively,
he/she would be entitled to financial upgradation in the immediately
promotional grade/post according to the hierarchy available in the
organization. The other condition which the candidate had to fulfil
was, with respect to educational qualifications and bench mark
provisions required in the promotional rules/policies. This scheme
W.P.(C) No.3982/2011 Page 2
was refined late and instead of two, three financial upgradations were
assured in MACP which was brought into force with effect from
01.09.2008 by a notification dated 06.08.2009.
4. The petitioner's complaint is that he really belongs to class of
employees who ought to be given the third financial upgradation
entailment of the MACP. We do not agree because the scheme was
formulated and published later though given retrospective effect from
01.09.2008. This court notices that scheme is not statutory in
character and was meant to relieve stagnation at different levels. The
first important observation is that the petitioner was the recipient of
not less than three promotions and would have in terms of even the
existing conditions - been disentitled to any further career
progression as on 31.08.2008 when he actually retired from the
services. Secondly, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation
on 15.08.2008 but actually retired from the services on 31.08.2008 on
account of a specific rule.
5. As far as reliance on R.L.Marwah (supra) and Kishan Lal
Kalal (supra) are concerned, this court is unpersuaded by the
submissions. R.L. Marwah (supra) was a case dealing with
entitlement to pension. Now it is well settled after D.S.Nakara &
Others vs. Union of India 1983 AIR 130 and further judgment which
have explained that all pensioners form the same class and cannot be
discriminated against on the basis of dates of retirement. That logic,
however cannot prevail in the present case. What the court has to
contend with is a claim for promotion on the basis of a scheme or
W.P.(C) No.3982/2011 Page 3
policy brought into force after the employee superannuated from
service.
6. So far as Kishan Lal Kalal (supra) is concerned, the factual
situation is exactly the reverse; the notification became effective prior
to the date of the petitioner's superannuation and therefore applied in
full force. All the court could have done was to effect its mandate.
7. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 08, 2015
rb
W.P.(C) No.3982/2011 Page 4
