Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rai Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 November, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.25208 of 2013
Date of decision: 18.11.2013
Rai Singh
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr.Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The claim in this petition is for the grant of 3rd ACP to the petitioner under the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 and to accordingly re-fix his pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2010 as a Signaller. The petitioner was appointed as a Telephone Attendant in 1973 through the recommendations of Subordinate Selection Board to the State Government. He earned diploma in Telegraphy while in service. He was promoted as a Apprentice Signaller in 1976 and as Signaller in 1977, from which post he retired. His complaint is that from 1976 to 30.6.2010, he did not yet receive any type of financial upgradation. He was given the benefit of first and second ACP on completion of 10 and 20 years of regular satisfactory Kumar Paritosh 2013.11.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.25208 of 2013 2 service; first with effect from 1.1.1996 and then on 16.5.2001. There was a pay scale revision in 2008. Not having been allowed the benefit of the 3rd ACP pay scale, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.21038 of 2013 requesting this Court to issue a mandamus to the respondents for the grant of 3rd ACP. This Court vide order dated 27.9.2013 directed the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana Irrigation & W.R. Department, Haryana, Panchkula to consider and decide the representation preferred by the petitioner earlier within 30 days of the order being brought to the knowledge of the competent authority/decision maker. As a consequence of that order, an order has been passed by the Engineer-in-Chief on 31.11.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and thus the representation dated 14.2.2013. It has been recorded in the order that the petitioner has received the benefit of 3 financial upgradations in his service career. He received the Higher Standard Scale of ` 1400-2600 with effect from 1.1.1994 and the 2nd ACP of ` 5450-8000 with effect from 21.6.1997. It has been stated that the petitioner was granted 2nd ACP with effect from 21.6.1997 in violation of Government instructions. That benefit could be granted only with effect from 1.1.2006. Consequently, the necessary action for rectification of pay is under process. The petitioner is not entitled to 3rd ACP scale.
2. Rule 7 (3) of Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 has been relied upon to justify the dismissal. The aforesaid rule reads as follows : -
"Every government Servant covered under the general ACP scheme shall, for the purposes of drawal of pay, be eligible for the third ACP grade pay if he has completed 30 years regular satisfactory service and has not got any financial Kumar Paritosh upgradation in the last ten years and has not got 2013.11.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.25208 of 2013 3 more than two financial upgradation so far. Financial upgradation in this context includes functional promotion in the hierarchy or further revision/modification of the pay structure for the same post after 01.01.2006."
3. The formula laid down for the grant of 3rd ACP grade is two fold; one that the person should have completed 30 years of regular satisfactory service; second, he has not have got any financial upgradation for the last 10 years and has got no more than two financial upgradations so far. The Higher Standard Pay Scale granted in 1994 was a financial upgradation in terms of the then policy. The petitioner got 2nd ACP but with effect from the wrong date. However, since no final order has been passed with respect to changing date of grant of 2nd ACP scale, this Court is not called upon to express any opinion thereon and the petitioner will remain at liberty to challenge the final order, if passed, before this Court or in some other forum exercising jurisdiction. There are three things inter linked in rule 7(3); 30 years of service as specified, no financial upgradation for the last 10 years and not more than 2 financial upgradation received so far. The petitioner has received two financial upgradations and in terms of rule 7(3) has been correctly held not entitled to the 3rd ACP pay scales. There is no legal infirmity to be seen in the impugned order. A priori, the petitioner claim for 3rd ACP in this petition admits of receipt of the first two. The grant of Higher Standard Pay Scales was governed by the policy letter dated 8.2.1994 (P-6) the then prevailing concession against stagnation. In that prevailing system, the Higher Standard Pay Scale was for to remove stagnation which is also the purpose of ACP scheme. Therefore, the Higher Standard Pay Scales would itself amount to a financial upgradation Kumar Paritosh 2013.11.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.25208 of 2013 4 removing the base of the claim for an undue benefit.
4. There is thus no merit in this petition which is dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
November 18, 2013 JUDGE
Paritosh Kumar
Kumar Paritosh
2013.11.28 12:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document