Himachal Pradesh High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Yogesh Kumar Sood on 25 July, 2017
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 502 of 2012.
.
Decided on: 25.07.2017.
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Yogesh Kumar Sood ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI with
r Ms. Sukarma, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Facts as noticed by the learned Tribunal, undisputed in nature, are as under:-
" The undisputed facts are that the applicant initially joined service as a Technical Supervisor in 1982 and in 1995, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Technical Officer in the scale of Rs. 1640- 2900 (revised to Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996). Since the applicant had not got further promotion, as per the ACP Scheme dated 9.8.99, he was entitled to grant of second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service and he was been granted the same w.e.f. 15.10.2006 in the scale of Rs. 6500-10,500. Applicant is not satisfied with the same and claims 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2017 23:57:52 :::HCHP 2
that he is entitled to be granted ACP in the scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 as in between there exists no post in the hierarchy. In other words, the precise submission of the applicant is that from the post of ATO (non-
.
gazetted Group 'B') the next existing post in the hierarchy as per existing rules is DAD (NM) (Gazetted Class-I), which is in the scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 as such he should have been granted ACP in this very scale and the action of the respondents in granting him the scale of Rs. 6500-10,500, for which there are neither any rules framed, nor has the post ever been filled, meaning thereby that there exists no post in the scale of Rs. 6500-10,500."
The act and conduct of the petitioner in discharge of his duties is unblemished.
2. The only issue before us is whether the petitioner is eligible and entitled for grant of benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) on completion of 24 years of service, as on 15th of October, 2006, or not.
3. It is not in dispute that the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme was accorded to the petitioner but then it was not on the pay scale of ` 8000-13,500, which otherwise the petitioner was entitled to. Taking benefit of the amendment in the proposed new rules, such benefit came to be accorded but by restricting the claim to pay scale of ` 6500-10,500. It is contended that such necessary action in ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2017 23:57:52 :::HCHP 3 terms of proposed new rules was taken by the respondents and in fact recommendation was made for creation of 10 .
posts. But the fact of the matter being that the proposed rules never came to be notified, as on the date when the petitioner was otherwise entitled to the grant of benefit of second ACP, more so, on completion of 24 years of service as on 15.10.2006. It is in this backdrop, we find the proposed rules to be non-existent and the employees to be continued to be governed by the old rules, the Tribunal, in its wisdom, rightly adjudicated the lis in favour of the original applicant holding him entitled to all benefits under the prevalent rules (old rules) with a consequent direction for grant of benefit of ACP in the pay scale of ` 8000-13,500 in place of ` 6500-10,500.
4. In this backdrop, we find no scope for interfering with the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the fact finding authority. This Court is only required to examine as to whether the Tribunal has correctly interpreted and applied the law and also the findings returned are not bordering perversity on account of incorrect appreciation and interpretation of facts and law. In the instant case, we find the order passed by the learned Tribunal to be absolutely in consonance with law. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2017 23:57:52 :::HCHP 4The writ petition is disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 25, 2017.
(narender)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2017 23:57:52 :::HCHP