The Supreme Court has recently held that Employee who refused Promotion when offered, cannot claim benefits of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme.
The Bench comprising of Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that it is not 'lack of promotional opportunities' but an employee opting to forfeit offered promotion, for her own personal reasons.
Brief Facts of the Case
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Centre assailing High Court order wherein the CAT order was intervened.
The CAT via its order has denied benefits of ACP scheme to the respondent-employees who were offered promotion to the higher post of Translation Officer on regular basis but due to personal grounds, they refused the same.
In the clarification order by Centre, it was also specifically reflected that the respondent-employee having refused promotion on multiple occasions, cannot be said to be stagnating as she, of her own volition has opted to remain in the grade of Senior Translator.
The CAT order was challenged before the High Court which reversed the ruling noting that in case a particular employee had turned down the offered promotion, the non-acceptance of promotion would impact their second upgradation only. It was concluded that the employees were rightly given the benefit of first upgradation, which could not have been withdrawn. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tribunal was interfered and consequently, direction was issued for restoration of the upgradation under the ACP Scheme, to the concerned employees.
The basic facts of the other appeal on the same line was that instead of regular promotion, the respondent-employees were offered promotion on officiating basis with the stipulation that the promotes are liable to reversion if their seniors return to their present cadre due to any administrative reasons.
Supreme Court Observation
The Court on the outset noted that ACP Scheme was intended as a “safety net” to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues.
It observed that the benefit of the financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if regular promotion during the prescribed intervals, 12 years and 24 years, could not be availed by an employee as mentioned in the Condition no. 5.1 and the High Court unnecessarily referred to Condition No. 10 to hold in favor of employees who have refused promotion offered to them.
Answering the key question in the case as to whether the benefit of the Scheme be claimed by an employee when she, despite offer of regular promotion, refuses to accept the same and chooses to remain in the existing grade of her own volition?, the Court refused to same.
The Court noted that if a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because she has suffered stagnation.
The Court also observed that when an employee refuses the offered promotion, difficulties in manning the higher position might arise which give rise to administrative difficulties as the concerned employee very often refuse promotion in order to continue in his/her own place of posting.
Citing Scottish doctrine of “Approbate and Reprobate”, the Court declared declared that the employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999.
However, the Court specified that the above ruling won't apply to the other appeal as the respondent-employees therein as they were not offered regular promotion but conditional promotion on officiating basis subject to reversion.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
