Himachal Pradesh High Court

_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 16 July, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11402 of 2025 Decided on: 16.07. 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Nalini ....Petitioner


                                       Versus
    State of H.P. & Ors                                                      ...Respondents

_________________________________________________________________

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner:r Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Ms.Leena Guleria, learned Deputy

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioner's grievance is to the office order dated

04.03.2025, whereby the Director Higher Education,

Himachal Pradesh considered the case of the petitioner in

terms of judgment rendered in Chinta Devi and Ors Vs.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

State of H.P. and Others2. Present petitioner was one of the

petitioners in the aforesaid case. In terms of the judgment,

respondents were directed to consider the individual

representations of the petitioners for the redressal of their

grievances in accordance with law.

3. Petitioner had also preferred her representation

seeking grant of progression under the Assured Career

Progression Scheme (ACPS). The Director Higher Education,

rejected petitioner's representation on the ground that

decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP and

Ors3 has been assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and

also on the ground that benefit under the new ACPS cannot

be allowed to the petitioner by ignoring the benefit of re-

revision 2012 as per the instructions/directions of the

Government. Relevant portion from the impugned order is

as follows:-

"And Whereas, as per Finance Department letter

dated 07.07.2014 and 09.09.2014 clarified that once an employee has already got three enhancements/financial up- gradations i.e. grant of progression under new or old ACPS, or promotion or any other enhancement except the annual increments or general pay revision based on the pay commission in fourteen years or more of his entire service,

CWP No.10347 of 2024 of 2024 decided on 18.09.2024.

CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 01.11.2023

thereafter he will not be entitled for placement in next higher grade pay in the new ACP Scheme introduced vide FD's instruction dated 09.08.2012. As per Financial Department instruction dated 26.02.2013 Government has decided that for the purpose of granting benefit under 4-9-14 and 8-16-

.

24-32 ACPs, this re-revision of pay structure shall be treated as financial enhancement. The Judgment dated 01.11.2023 passed by HHC, HP in CWPOA No. 5536/2020, qua

allowing the claims of the petitioners for grant of benefits under ACPs, examined in the Law Deptt and the department is advised to agitate the impugned judgment in the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Now therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in compliance to the Hon'ble High Court order in CWP No. 10347/2024 & CWP No. 15337/2024, it has been perused and found that the ACP

benefit of 14 years cannot be allowed by ignoring the benefit

of re-revision 2012. Hence, representations are considered and rejected."

4. The impugned order passed by the Director Higher

Education is absolutely in breach of the decision rendered in

Sanjay Kumar3. The question for determination before the

Hon'ble Division Bench in Sanjay Kumar3 was as to whether

pay revision or grant of Grade Pay vide order dated

01.10.2012 can be termed to be a financial upgradation so

as to deny the financial upgradation under ACPS. Whether,

benefit of 14 years of service under the new ACPS can be

denied on account of enhancement of Grade Pay under the

Government Order (Pay Revision) effected on 01.10.2012.

Hon'ble Division Bench on the basis of circular dated

07.07.2014 held that annual increment or general pay

revision shall not be considered as financial upgradation for

.

the purpose of benefit, if any, under the new ACPS.

Consequently, the Court found merit in the claim of the

petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of 3rd financial

upgradation on their completing 14 years of service despite

receiving the enhancement of Grade Pay under the

Government Order dated 01.10.2012. Relevant observations

and conclusion drawn in the aforesaid judgment are as

under:-

"7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court

finds that as of today, two benefit of financial upgradation already stands granted to the petitioners

in terms of new ACP scheme and dispute is only with regard to entitlement, if any, of the petitioner for third

benefit after 14 years of service. Third benefit under new ACP scheme is sought to be denied to the

petitioners on the ground that on account of enhancement of grade pay vide government order dated 1.10.2012 pay of the petitioners has been already enhanced and same in terms of order dated 26.2.2013 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh is to be treated as financial enhancement for the purpose of granting benefit under 8-16-24- 32 and 4-9-14 ACP scheme. Much reliance has been placed on

communication dated 26.2.2013 issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby it came to be clarified that grade pay granted vide order 1.10.2012 shall be treated as financial enhancement

.

for the purpose of granting benefit under 8-16-24-32

and 4-9-14 ACP scheme.

8.....

9. Now question which needs to be determined in the

instant proceedings as to "whether pay revision or grant of grade pay vide order dated 1.10.2012 can be termed to be a financial upgradation so as to deny the

benefit of financial upgradation under ACPS.

10. Careful perusal of communication dated 7th July 2014 whereby old ACP scheme came to be replaced by new ACPS, clearly reveals that annul increment or

general pay revision shall not be considered as

financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under ACPS. If it is so, there appears to be merit in the claim of the petitioners that they are

entitled to the benefit of third financial upgradation after their having completed 14 years of service. At this stage, it would be apt to take

note of para-5 of the afore letter, which reads as

under:-

"Moreover, the overriding objective on an assured career progression scheme is to ensure at least three financial up- gradations/ enhancements/ promotions to a regular

employee in his entire service career. Therefore, in partial modification of earlier orders on ACP schemes it is directed that, once an employee has already got three enhancements / financial upgradations i.e. grant of progression under the new or old ACPS or promotion or any other financial enhancement except the annual increment or the general pay revision based on the pay commission, in fourteen years or more his/her entire service., thereafter, he will not be entitled for placement in next higher grade pay in the ACPS Scheme introduced vide FD's instructions dated 9th August 2012. However, it is clarified that after availing three enhancements / upgradation/ promotion, an employee will be eligible to take the benefit of normal promotions

available in his service career."

11. Careful perusal of aforesaid instructions clearly reveals that an employee is granted three enhancements/

.

upgradations/promotion, he/she shall not be eligible for

grant of further benefit, if any, under ACPS, but in the case at hand, petitioners after being appointed as JBT though were given two benefits of financial upgradation under

ACPS, first benefit was granted under old ACPS after their having completed eight years service, whereas second benefit was granted in their favour after their having completed nine years service under new ACPS and third

benefit in terms of new ACPS, for which petitioners have already opted, is being denied on the ground that vide order dated 26.02.2013 grade pay of the petitioners has been enhanced w.e.f. 1.10.2012. However, as observed

hereinabove, financial upgradation, if any, on

account of pay revision/revision of grade pay cannot be a ground to deny benefit of financial upgradations under ACPS, which become due after completion of four, nine and fourteen years as per new ACPS. Though, it has

been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents/State that grade pay of the petitioners was enhanced, as a result of which, their pay was enhanced, but as has been taken

note above, financial enhancement on account of

annual increment or general pay revision, based on pay commission, is not to be considered while considering the case of an employee for grant of

benefit of ACPS. Since, in the case at hand pay of the petitioners came to be enhanced on account of grant of grade pay, benefit of financial upgradation in terms of provision contained under ACPS cannot be denied."

It is not the case of the respondents that decision

in Sanjay Kumar3 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that the

respondents have taken a policy decision to implement the

decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar3 subject to outcome of

.

the SLP filed by them. That being the position, it is beyond

comprehension as to why respondents have passed the

impugned order, rejecting the case of the petitioner for

reasons, which have already been turned down in Sanjay

Kumar3. It was not open for the respondent-the Director

Higher Education, H.P. to sit over the decision in Sanjay

Kumar3.

5. In view of above, the impugned order dated

04.03.2025 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are

directed to consider the representation of the petitioner

afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the decision

rendered in Sanjay Kumar3 within three weeks.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the ending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 16, 2025 R.Atal