[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Udal Singh Sanger vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 5 January, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
2026:UHC:135-DB
Reserved on 22.12.2025
Delivered on 05.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No.69 of 2020
Udal Singh Sanger ..............Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another .............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel (through Video Conferencing) and Ms.
Annupriya Kukreti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy A.G. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per)
By means of the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the judgment and order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the
learned Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Claim
Petition No. 49/DB/2019 (Udal Singh Sangar v. State of
Uttarakhand and another), as well as the consequential
order dated 06.02.2019, whereby the benefit of third
Assured Career Progression (ACP) earlier granted to the
petitioner was cancelled. A further prayer has been made to
allow the claim petition in toto.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer on
26.10.1972 and was subsequently promoted to the post of
Assistant Engineer in June, 2000; that, The petitioner
attained the age of superannuation and retired from service
on 31.01.2008 from the office of Executive Engineer, N.H.
2026:UHC:135-DB
Division, P.W.D., Roorkee; that, at the time of his
retirement, the petitioner was drawing Grade Pay of
₹6600/-; that, the State Government issued Government
Order dated 08.03.2011, introducing the Assured Career
Progression (ACP) Scheme, with retrospective effect from
01.01.2006 / 01.09.2008, depending upon the grade pay
held by an employee; that, under para 2(i) of the said
Government Order, provision was made for grant of three
financial up-gradations on completion of 10, 18 and 26
years of continuous satisfactory service from the date of
direct recruitment; that, pursuant to the said Government
Order, a Screening Committee was constituted and, on its
recommendation, vide office order dated 20.10.2011, the
petitioner was granted the benefit of third ACP w.e.f.
01.09.2008. Subsequently, on representation made by the
petitioner claiming entitlement to third ACP from
01.01.2006, the department re-examined the matter and
vide order dated 06.02.2019, cancelled the ACP benefit
altogether, on the ground that the petitioner had already
retired on 31.01.2008, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of
applicability of the ACP Scheme. Aggrieved, the petitioner
approached the Public Services Tribunal, which, after
exchange of pleadings, dismissed the claim petition vide
judgment dated 12.12.2019. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that once the benefit of
ACP had been granted and pension fixed accordingly, the
same could not have been withdrawn retrospectively; that,
the cancellation order dated 06.02.2019 was passed
without affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby
violating the principles of natural justice; that, the ACP
benefit constitutes a vested right and property under Article
300-A of the Constitution and cannot be taken away
without due process of law. He would further submit that
2026:UHC:135-DB
the subsequent Government Order dated 30.10.2012,
amending the ACP Scheme, specifically provided that
benefits already granted under the G.O. dated 08.03.2011
shall not be reopened. The Tribunal ignored binding
precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
SPS Vains (2008) 9 SCC 125, which prohibits
discriminatory treatment among similarly situated retirees
based solely on date of retirement.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the ACP Scheme
introduced vide Government Order dated 08.03.2011 was
applicable only to working employees and not to those who
had already retired prior to its enforcement; that, the
petitioner admittedly retired on 31.01.2008, whereas the
ACP Scheme came into effect from 01.09.2008, and
therefore, no benefit could legally accrue to him. He would
further submit that the grant of third ACP to the petitioner
in 2011 was a clerical/administrative mistake, which was
later rectified vide order dated 06.02.2019; that, the
rectification of an erroneous benefit does not require prior
notice, as no penal or recovery proceedings were initiated;
that, learned Tribunal correctly held that the petitioner was
never entitled to third ACP, and therefore, the claim was
rightly dismissed.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
petitioner's reliance on Union of India Vs. SPS Vains (Retd.)
& Others is wholly misconceived. The said judgment dealt
with arbitrary discrimination between pensioners of the
same rank based solely on different dates of retirement,
which was held to be violative of Article 14; that, no such
discrimination or parity issue arises in the present case;
that, the action of the respondents is merely corrective in
nature, undertaken to rectify a financial benefit wrongly
2026:UHC:135-DB
granted in contravention of the applicable Government
Orders. It is settled law that no vested or accrued right can
arise from an illegal or mistaken grant, and a benefit
erroneously extended does not become lawful by passage of
time. The principles laid down in D.S. Nakara and S.P.S.
Vains apply only where a pension scheme is selectively
applied to a class of pensioners, which is not the situation
here. The reliance on Article 300-A is equally misplaced, as
withdrawal of an illegally granted benefit cannot be termed
deprivation of property. Benefits such as ACP are subject to
eligibility and statutory compliance and cannot be claimed
as an indefeasible right. Hence, SPS Vains does not advance
the petitioner's case, and the impugned judgment calls for
no interference on this ground.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner
stood superannuated on 31.01.2008. Vide Government
Order dated 08.03.2011, the benefit of the Assured Career
Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme was to be granted to employees
in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Pay
Commission. As per the said Government Order, the benefit
of A.C.P. was to be extended w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to those
employees who were appointed in the Grade Pay of ₹5400/-
and above, whereas in respect of employees in the Grade
Pay of ₹4800/- and below, the scheme was to be
implemented w.e.f. 01.09.2009. Subsequently, another
Government Order dated 30.10.2012 was issued by the
State Government, clarifying that for the purposes of the
A.C.P. Scheme, the relevant "post held" would be the post
to which the employee was initially appointed by direct
recruitment.
8. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he
2026:UHC:135-DB
was initially appointed to the post of Junior Engineer in the
pay scale of ₹175-10-300 in the year 1972. Thus, it is
evident that he was not appointed on a post corresponding
to the Grade Pay of ₹5400/-. Consequently, the benefit of
the A.C.P. Scheme, even otherwise, would have been
applicable to him only w.e.f. 01.09.2008. It is pertinent to
note that the benefit of the A.C.P. Scheme is admissible
only to those employees who were in service on the date of
its implementation. Since the petitioner had already retired
from service on 31.01.2008, and the benefit of the A.C.P.
Scheme became applicable to employees in the relevant
grade only w.e.f. 01.09.2008, the petitioner was clearly not
entitled to the benefit of the third A.C.P. carrying Grade Pay
of ₹7600/- w.e.f. 01.07.2006.
9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to him prior to
issuance of the order dated 06.02.2019 is concerned, the
said submission is devoid of merit as the cancellation order
dated 06.02.2019 merely rectified an apparent mistake and,
therefore, no prior opportunity of hearing was required.
Moreover, no recovery proceedings were initiated pursuant
to the said cancellation order. In such circumstances, the
plea of violation of principles of natural justice is
misconceived. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
India v. S.P.S. Vains (Retd.) & Others is also misplaced. In
the said case, the issue pertained to discriminatory grant of
pension among similarly situated retirees, whereas the
controversy in the present case relates to the applicability
and implementation of the A.C.P. Scheme. Hence, the said
judgment has no application to the facts of the present
case.
10. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or
2026:UHC:135-DB
jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ
petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
05.01.2026 05.01.2026
Mamta
MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af144
9e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9
e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004
ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.01.05 13:27:14 +05'30'
