Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Pal Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 19 January, 2024
CWP-23107-2016 1
2024: PHHC:007549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.209 CWP-23107-2016
Date of Decision: 19.01.2024
Ravinder Pal Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHITYA
Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Mann, Advocate and
Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana.
3 2k 3
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of
certiorari quashing the letter dated 06.06.2016, Annexure P-4; a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to allow 3 ACP scale to the petitioner
with effect from 04.03.2014, and not to withdraw the increment granted to
2. As per the undisputed facts on record, the petitioner was
initially appointed as Punjabi Teacher (C & V teacher) on 16.01.1984, and
was regularised in service with effect from 01.11.1986. He was granted first
Assured Career Progression (ACP) scale with effect from 01.11.1996 as
Punjabi Teacher. Later, he was promoted as Punjabi Lecturer on 02.04.1998
in the pay scale of ¥6500-10500 (revised to ¥9300-34800 + GP 4800). On
01.11.2006, he was granted first ACP scale as Punjabi Lecturer of €9300-
34800+5400. The petitioner represented for grant of 3 ACP scale with
Grade Pay %6000 on completion of twenty-four years of regular service,
MANINDER claiming that he became eligible for the same with effect from 04.03.2014,
CWP-23107-2016 2
2024: PHHC:007549
as he was given the 2 ACP scale with effect from 01.11.2006. The
representation was rejected, vide letter dated 06.06.2016, stating that for
grant of 3 ACP scale with effect from 04.03.2014, increment granted on
01.11.2006 should be withdrawn. The petitioner, however, refused the
withdrawal of increment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in case the
petitioner's pay is fixed after withdrawing the increment granted on
01.11.2006, as stated in the impugned letter, his pay will be less than what
he would have been getting had he not been promoted as lecturer. He is
entitled to the benefit of 3° ACP scale in terms of the Rule 13 of the
Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (for short
'the ACP Rules').
4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the
petitioner is not entitled to 3 ACP scale since he has already availed three
financial upgradations during service; firstly, by way of first ACP scale on
01.11.1996; secondly, on 02.04.1998 when he was promoted as Punjabi
Lecturer and his pay was fixed in the scale of promoted post; thirdly, on
01.11.2006 when he was granted the first ACP scale as Lecturer in the Grade
Pay of ¥5400. There is specific bar under Rule 7 of the ACP Rules that a
government servant shall not be entitled to avail ACP upgradation if he has
already availed three financial upgradations of any kind in his career.
5. Heard.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already availed three
financial upgradations in service, as aforementioned. In terms of Rule 7 of
the ACP Rules, an employee is only entitled to a maximum of three financial
upgradations of any kind in his career. However, to claim the benefit of 3%
ACP scale/fourth upgradation, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
MANINDER
2024 01,30 14:22 Rule 13 of the ACP Rules, which reads as under:
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
CWP-23107-2016 3
2024: PHHC:007549
13. Special entitlement for ACP scales:-
Where the functional pay structure of the promotional
post in the hierarchy is inferior to the ACP pay structure
entitlement of the Government servant, had he not been
promoted as per his eligibility and entitlement on completion of
prescribed length of service for the 1* 2" or 3 ACP pay
structure entitlement, as the case may be, the Government
servant shall be entitled to be placed in the 1* or 2" or 3" ACP
pay structure as the case may be after completing the prescribed
period of service for being placed in the 1" or 2"* or 3" ACP pay
Provided that such functional promotion to a post with
such inferior pay structure shall not be counted as a financial
upgradation for the purpose of these rules.
7. Apparently, the Rule stipulates that where functional pay
structure of the promotional posts is inferior to the ACP pay structure
entitlement of the government servant, had he not been promoted on
completion of prescribed length of service for the 1%, 2™ and 3 ACP pay
structure entitlement, he/she shall be entitled to the grant of ACP scale. The
proviso further stipulates that such promotion with inferior pay structure will
not be a financial upgradation for grant of ACP scales. It essentially means,
in case an employee had not been promoted on such a post with inferior
scales of pay on completing the prescribed service for grant of ACP scales,
he/she would be entitled to better pay scale prescribed under the ACP Rules.
8. However, facts on record do not establish that had the petitioner
not been promoted as Punjabi Lecturer, he would have been entitled to better
scales under the ACP Rules. After grant of 1% ACP scale/financial
upgradation as Punjabi Teacher on 01.11.1996, the petitioner would have
been entitled to 2" ACP scale on the same post on completion of ten years'
service; whereas, he stood promoted as Punjabi Lecturer in the higher scale
CWP-23107-2016 4
2024: PHHC:007549
of pay much earlier, on 02.04.1998 itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that
had he not been promoted, he would have been entitled to better financial
benefits in terms of 2"' ACP scale. Accordingly, Rule 13 does not entitle him
to claim 3™ ACP scale.
9. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition, and it is hereby
dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA)
JUDGE
19.01.2024
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned__:: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
