Ram Niwas vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5084 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057502




CM-3398-C-2023 in/&                        -1-       2023:PHHC:057502
RSA-2533-2017 (O&M)

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                       CM-3398-C-2023 in/&
                                       RSA-2533-2017 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision :24.04.2023


Ram Niwas                                                       ....Appellant


                                Versus


State of Haryana and others                                     ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the appellant.

            Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.

                                ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-3398-C-2023

Present application has been filed for fixing the main regular

second appeal for an actual date of hearing.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which

are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed and the main

regular second appeal is taken up for hearing today itself with the consent of

the learned counsel for the respondent-State.

RSA-2533-2017

Present regular second appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 08.09.2014 by which, the suit

filed by the appellant-plaintiff claiming the benefit under the Assured Career

Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "ACP Scheme') was

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057502

CM-3398-C-2023 in/& -2- 2023:PHHC:057502 RSA-2533-2017 (O&M)

dismissed as well as the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court

dated 21.09.2016 by which, the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff

against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 08.09.2014, was

also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the Courts below

have not appreciated the facts in a correct perspective to hold that the

appellant is not entitled for the benefit under the ACP Scheme as being

claimed and the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse to the

evidence and facts on record.

On being asked to point out as to which fact or evidence taken

into account by the Courts below is perverse or incorrect so as to set aside

the judgment and decree of the Courts below, learned counsel for the

appellant has not been able to point out any perversity in the findings

recorded by the Courts below.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State

submits that in the present case, the claim of the appellant is only for the

grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme, which benefit is only admissible in

case, during the entire service career an employee has not been able to get

three financial upgradation. Learned counsel for the respondent-State relies

upon Rule 7.4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression)

Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as Rule 7.4 of the ACP Rules).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

It is a conceded position that aspect of the grant of benefit of

ACP Scheme is governed by 2008 ACP Rules. Rule 7.4 of the 2008 ACP

Rules is as under:-

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057502

CM-3398-C-2023 in/& -3- 2023:PHHC:057502 RSA-2533-2017 (O&M)

"In case of a Government servant who gets promoted, he will be considered for the next ACP grade pay after he completes 10 years of regular satisfactory service in the promotional post without any financial upgradation and will be entitled to the next ACP grade pay with reference to the grade pay of the promotional post he hold:

Provided that a Government servant shall not be entitled to avail ACP upgradation if, he was already availed of three financial upgradation of any kind in his career."

Now the question arises as to whether during the service career,

appellant-plaintiff had got three financial upgradation or not. It has already

come on record that on 04.09.1992, appellant-plaintiff got promotion as

Assistant Revenue Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.1250-2400 and, thereafter,

on completion of 20 years of service on higher standard pay scale of

Rs.1400-2600 was given w.e.f. 26.10.1994 and, thereafter, he got promotion

as Ziledar on 29.12.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2900, which fact is

conceded by the appellant-plaintiff.

Once, the facts mentioned hereinbefore are conceded by the

appellant-plaintiff that he had got three financial upgradation in his service

career, keeping in view the provision of Rule 7.4 of the 2008 ACP Rules no

further claim of the appellant-plaintiff can be considered for further

upgradations.

Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to

rebut the conceded position stated hereinbefore as well as relevant rule,

which has been cited.

Keeping in view the fact mentioned hereinefore, no perversity

in the findings recorded by the Courts below could be pointed out by the

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057502

CM-3398-C-2023 in/& -4- 2023:PHHC:057502 RSA-2533-2017 (O&M)

learned counsel for the appellant, no interference is called for by this Court

and the present regular second appeal is accordingly dismissed.

April 24, 2023                       (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti                                          JUDGE
            Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
            Whether reportable :        Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057502

                                     4 of 4