Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Parmanand And Others on 5 March, 2025
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030859-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 04.02.2025
Date of Decision: 05.03.2025
1. LPA No.1865 of 2015 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others
...Appellants
Versus
Parmanand and others
...Respondents
2. LPA No.584 of 2017 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others
...Appellants
Versus
Kalu Ram and others
...Respondents
3. LPA No.965 of 2024 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others
...Appellants
Versus
Bhim Singh
...Respondent
4. LPA No.882 of 2017 (O&M)
State of Haryana and another
...Appellants
Versus
Rampal Patwari and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior DAG, Haryana
for the appellants.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-03-2025 03:57:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030859-DB
LPA No.1865 of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected cases -2-
Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate
for the respondents in LPA No.1865 of 2015,
LPA No.965 of 2024 & LPA No.882 of 2017.
None for respondent No.1 in LPA No.584 of 2017.
Mr. B.S. Beniwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in LPA No.584 of 2017.
Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in LPA No.584 of 2017.
*****
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.
All the four above-captioned Letters Patent Appeals are being
taken up together for discussion and adjudication as similar questions of law
and facts are involved therein.
2. As per the brief common factual-matrix culminating in the filing
of the present appeals, respondents-Parmanand, Preet Singh and Dalbir Singh
in LPA No.1865 of 2015 (writ-petitioners in CWP No.15880 of 2013) and
respondents No.1 to 3-Kalu Ram, Subhash Chander and Dalip Singh in LPA
No.584 of 2017 (writ-petitioners in CWP No.21423 of 2014) were, initially,
employed with the HSMITC but later-on, they were absorbed as 'Patwaris' in
the Revenue Department whereas respondent-Bhim Singh in LPA No.965 of
2024 (writ-petitioner in CWP No.18715 of 2018 and non-applicant/petitioner in
RA-CW No.277 of 2023) and the respondents named Rampal, Prem Singh,
Naresh Kumar, Rajbir Singh and Balwan Singh in LPA No.882 of 2017 (writ-
petitioners in CWP No.23074 of 2010) were appointed as 'Patwaris' in the
Revenue Department. The afore-named writ-petitioners (here-in-after to be
referred as 'the respondents') had preferred the above-referred writ-petitions
for seeking the issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the
appellants-official respondents (here-in-after to be referred as 'the appellants')
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030859-DB
and other connected cases -3-
to grant 2nd/3rd ACP Scales to them, while averring that they had completed the
requisite tenure, i.e 20/30 years, of service for this purpose and they also prayed
for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting-aside the orders passed
by the appellants for rejecting their (respondents') afore-said claim. In their
separate Written-Replies/Affidavits filed in the above-mentioned writ-petitions,
the appellants contested the claim of the respondents, inter-alia, on the ground
that they (respondents) had not cleared/passed the departmental test/exam for
promotion to the post of 'Kanungo', as required under Rule 5(3)(b) of the
Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for short
'the Rules of 1998') and Rule 8(b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured
Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008'), so as to
become eligible for the grant of benefit of the ACP Scales and therefore, their
afore-referred claim has rightly been declined. Learned Single Judge(s) allowed
CWP Nos.15880 of 2013 and 23074 of 2010 vide the common impugned
judgment dated 24.07.2015 and CWP No.21423 of 2014 vide the impugned
judgment dated 30.05.2016 and disposed of CWP No.18715 of 2018 in terms
of the judgment rendered in Prithvi Singh vs. State of Haryana and others
(CWP No.10051 of 2013) on 27.04.2016 which had been decided in terms of
the above-described judgment as passed in CWP No.23074 of 2010 and also
dismissed RA-CW No.277 of 2023, arisen out of the impugned judgment dated
27.04.2016, vide the order dated 10.08.2023 and feeling aggrieved therefrom,
the appellants have chosen to prefer the instant intra-Court appeals.
3. We have heard learned State counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents (writ-petitioners) in the present appeals
and have also perused the files thoroughly.
4. Learned State counsel for the appellants has referred to Rule
5(3)(b) of the Rules of 1998 and Rule 8(b) of the Rules of 2008 and has
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030859-DB
and other connected cases -4-
contended that both these Rules envisage the fulfilment of the pre-requisite of
passing the departmental test for promotion to the next post in departmental
hierarchy, for becoming eligible for the grant of benefit of ACP Scales and the
respondents-Patwaris had not passed/cleared the afore-said departmental test
for the post of 'Kanungo' and therefore, they are not entitled to the above-
mentioned benefit but however, learned Single Judge(s) did not take the afore-
discussed pre-requisite and the factum of its non-fulfilment by the respondents,
into consideration at the time of granting the relief of ACP Scales to them vide
the above-referred impugned judgments and therefore, these judgments are
not legally sustainable and hence, the same deserve to be set-aside.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that
the Rules of 1998 and 2008 qua the grant of ACP Scales to the Government
employees had been framed to provide succour to them in the eventuality of
stagnation in their career on account of non-availability of the vacancies of the
promotional posts and thus, the pre-requisite of passing the departmental test
for promotion, for becoming eligible for the grant of afore-mentioned benefit,
is arbitrary and unjustified. They have, further, contended that even otherwise,
several similarly placed 'Patwaris' have already been extended the relief of
ACP Scales, by granting them exemption from passing the above-said test for
the post of 'Kanungo' and it being so, it is quite clear that learned Single
Judge(s) have rightly granted the afore-claimed relief to the respondents
vide the impugned judgments. To buttress their contentions, they have placed
reliance upon the verdicts rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India &
Anr versus G. Rajanna & Ors, 2008(14) SCC 721 and Amresh Kumar Sinha
& Ors Etc versus The State of Bihar & Ors Etc, 2023 SCC Online SC 496.
6. Explicitly, the object of framing the Rules of 1998 as well as the
Rules of 2008 was to ensure that no Government servant stagnates without
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030859-DB
and other connected cases -5-
any financial upgradation for more than 10 years unless he has already availed
03 financial upgradations in his career. It goes undisputed between the parties
that these Rules are applicable to the respondents. The appellants have also
not disputed the factum of the completion of requisite service tenure by the
respondents for grant of 2nd/3rd ACP Scales, as the case may be. The sole
objection, as set-forth by the appellants to deny the above-said benefit to the
respondents, is that they had not cleared/passed the departmental test/exam
for the post of 'Kanungo'. However, they (appellants) have not denied the fact
that some similarly placed 'Patwaris' were granted ACP Scales by exempting
them from clearing/passing the departmental test.
7. In Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has relied upon the observations made by the Three Judges' Bench of
the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr (supra) and has held that "the
qualification of graduation was prescribed for the promotion to the post of
Accounts Officer rather than for grant of in-situ promotion on the non-
functional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which was purely and
simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating
any promotion to any higher post and the appellants were to be extended the
benefit of ACP".
8. It is worth-while to mention here that while answering the
reference in Kamlanand Thakur versus The State of Bihar and others,
2025(1) SLR 695, the Full Bench of Patna High Court has also relied upon the
afore-quoted verdict of the Apex Court and has observed as under:-
"48. Thus, the questions stand answered as follows :-
(A.) Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous
Rules, 1958, requiring passing of Departmental Accounts
Examination for promotion, is not applicable in case of
grant of A.C.P. benefits under the A.C.P. Rules, 2003;
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030859-DB
and other connected cases -6-
(B.) Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous
Rules, 1958 is confined to passing of preliminary
examination/final examination in Accounts only for the
purpose of confirmation, crossing the efficiency bar and
promotion to Selection Grade only and not for regular
promotion;
(C.) Rule 4(5) of the A.C.P. Rules, 2003 even though
provides that the prescribed requirements and mode of
sanction of financial progression under the scheme (A.C.P.
scheme) shall be the same which are prescribed under the
Recruitment/Service Rules for regular promotion against
vacancies and if the Rules/Resolutions prescribe passing of
Department Examination or any qualification for promotion,
that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of
benefit under the scheme will not affect the claim for grant
of A.C.P. after completion of twelve/twenty four years of
service for the reason that such financial progression under
the A.C.P. scheme is only in situ promotion and nothing
more. This is even notwithstanding any such requirement of
passing any Departmental Examination or acquiring any
educational qualification for promotion under the Service/
Recruitment/Promotion Rules."
The above-quoted observations, as made by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors (supra) and by the Full Bench of the
Patna High Court in Kamlanand Thakur (supra), are fully applicable to the
instant appeals and in view of these observations and also the fact that some
'Patwaris', who were similarly placed, have been exempted from passing the
afore-referred exam/test and have been granted the benefit of ACP Scales, it is
held that the respondents-writ petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of
ACP Scales on account of their not having cleared/passed the departmental test/
exam for the post of 'Kanungo'.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030859-DB
and other connected cases -7-
9. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion and in view of the
findings as recorded by learned Single Judge(s), we are of the considered
opinion that there is no cogent and valid reason/ground to interfere with the
impugned judgments. Resultantly, the appeals in hand, being sans any merit,
stand dismissed accordingly.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed
of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
05 March, 2025
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
7 of 7
