Delhi High Court
Rajesh Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 November, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Chief Justice, Subramonium Prasad
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
$~14 & 15.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 02.11.2022
% W.P.(C) 11525/2015
RAJESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. K. Trivedi and Mr. Naveen
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with
Mr.Waize Ali Noor and Mr. Yash
Upadhyay, Advocates.
% W.P.(C) 12375/2019
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through:
versus
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sonika Gill, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL)
1. Regard being had to similitude in the controversy involved in the
aforesaid two cases, they were heard analogously and a common order is
being passed in both the matters.
2. The present writ petitions are premised upon a similar factual matrix,
the quintessential controversy being whether certain employees were
entitled to grant of benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 1 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
(hereinafter, "ACP Scheme") from the due date of their respective date of
completion of 12years/ 24 years of service or the date of passing their
respective trade tests. The factual matrix of these petitions diverges on
certain aspects that will be discussed hereafter. However, while in one
petition benefit of the ACP Scheme has been accorded from the date of
passing of the test, in the other, it has been accorded from the due date of the
completion of 12 years/ 24 years of service.
3. W.P.(C) No. 11525/2015 has been filed by Mr. Rajesh Sharma, the
Petitioner, assailing the Order and Judgment dated 16.05.2015 passed by the
Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter, "CAT"), whereby the CAT
dismissed Original Application No. 2786/2012 refusing to grant Petitioner
the benefit of non-functional upgradation under the ACP Scheme from
28.03.2000 as sought by the Petitioner and allowing such benefits to be
accorded only from the date of passing of the test.
4. W.P.(C) No. 12375/2015 has been filed by Union of India assailing
the Order and Judgment dated 24.01.2019 passed by CAT whereby it partly
allowed OA No. 1697/2013 filed by the Respondents, granting them benefits
of the ACP Scheme from the date of completion of 12/24 years of service
irrespective of passing of the trade test.
5. While the matters revolve around similar issues, considering the
intervening facts of the matters, it is appropriate to deal with the writ
petitions separately.
Facts and averments in W.P.(C) No. 11525/2015
6. It is stated that the Petitioner was appointed as a Refg. Mechanic in
the office of Respondent No. 3 on 28.03.1998.
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 2 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
7. In 1999, the Govt. of India introduced the ACP Scheme which
provided for grant of financial upgradation upon completion of 12 and 24
years. The scheme stipulated that the benefit of ACP would only be
applicable to candidates who fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria and
norms for promotion, including the passing of the trade test.
8. On 04.01.2001, the Department of Personnel and Training (hereafter,
"DOPT"), issued a clarification by way of an Office Memorandum, inter-
alia, stating that as a special case, employees who qualified the trade test in
their first attempt after 09.08.1999 may be allowed benefit of ACP from
09.08.1999 only and not from the date of passing the trade test, whereas,
employees who qualified the trade test in subsequent attempts would be
given the benefit of ACP from the date of passing the test.
9. The Petitioner completed 12 years of service in 1999-2000. It is stated
by the Petitioner that the trade test was, however, conducted in November
2001 and upon appearing for it, the Petitioner passed the test. In furtherance
of clarification of the DOPT, the Indian National Defence workers
Federation (hereafter, "INTUC") vide letter dated 07.04.2008 requested the
competent authorities to consider the case of 15 persons, including the
Petitioner, for grant of the benefit of ACP Scheme from due date of their
respective promotion, i.e. from September 1999 onwards as opposed to the
date of passing the trade test since they qualified the test in their first attempt
as per the clarification. Out of the 15 persons in the list, 8 persons had
appeared for the trade test in July 2001 whereas the remaining 7, including
the Petitioner, appeared for the trade test in November 2001. The case was
referred to the Ministry of Defence, which referred it to DOPT, seeking a
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 3 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
special dispensation for relaxation in passing the trade test for granting
benefit of the ACP scheme.
10. The record further reveals that on 29.06.2010, in furtherance of the
advice of the DOPT dated 25.01.2010, the Ministry of Defence issued orders
conveying the sanction to relax the condition of passing the trade test before
granting financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme only in respect of the
8 persons who had appeared for the test in July 2001 and qualified the same
in their first attempt. In view of this development, the Petitioner filed an
O.A. being O.A. No. 3291/2011. Vide Order dated 13.09.2011, CAT
disposed of OA No. 3291/2011 directing the Respondents to treat the same
as a representation and consequently decide the matter within a period of 2
months in consultation with DOPT. Pursuant to the Order of the CAT,
Respondent No. 2 issued a communication to Respondent No. 3 on
19.01.2012, stating that upon examination of the Petitioner's case by the
Ministry of Defence in consultation with the DOPT, it was observed that the
Petitioner did not appear in the trade test conducted on 17.07.2001 as per his
own wish and therefore, financial upgradation could only be granted to him
from November 2001 onwards, i.e., when he passed the trade test.
Thereafter, on 07.02.2012, Respondent No. 3 passed an Order rejecting the
Petitioner's request for grant of relaxation for passing of trade test, in terms
of the communication dated 19.01.2012.
11. It is against the decision of Respondent No. 2 and 3, that the
Petitioner preferred O.A. No. 2786/2012 before CAT seeking relaxation of
the condition of passing the trade test as much as grant of financial
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 4 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
upgradation in terms of the ACP Scheme with effect from 28.03.2000. The
OA was dismissed by CAT wherein the CAT observed as under: -
"9. At Annexure A-1 is a communication of 19.01.2012 sent
by Superintendent Engineer (SG)on behalf of DG EME, i.e.
respondent No 2, addressed to the respondent No.3 inter alia
communicating that since the applicant had not appeared in the
supervisory trade test on 17.07.2001 as per his own wish hence,
financial upgradation could be granted to him only when he
passed the trade test in November 2001. At Annexure A-2 is a
speaking order passed by the respondent No. 3 incompliance of
the directions of the Tribunal in OA3291/2011. This contains
the same facts and contentions that have been incorporated in
the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. At Annexure A-3
(page-12 of the paperbook) is a communication conveying
sanction by the Ministry to relax the condition of passing trade
test before granting ACP as per the DOPT OM
dated09.08.1999 in respect of 8 personnel who had qualified in
the supervisory trade test in the first attempt, i.e., in July2001.
At Annexure A-5 is a clarification issued in consultation with
DOPT that as a special case employees who cleared the trade
test in the first attempt after09.08.1999 may be allowed benefit
of ACP from09.08.1999 only and not from the date of passing
the test. In no case was the benefit to be given to any person
who had appeared in the trade test before 09.08.1999 who, had
failed or had not appeared in the test or had not otherwise
passed the trade test. The applicant's claim does not fall within
this clarification because it is admitted that he did not qualify in
any trade test in first attempt after 09.08,1999 till November
2001.
10. From the aforenoted facts and documents, if appears that
the main issue is whether or not the applicant had knowledge of
the trade test held on17.07.2001, or whether he did not appear
in the trade test then, despite having knowledge, as per his own
wish. The respondents have produced the list of 7 tradesmen
whose names figured under the nominal roll of 228 tradesmen
employed in the unit of respondent No. 3but were eligible to
appear tor the trade test for grant of ACP to be conducted in
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 5 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
July 2001. The name of 7 tradesmen along with their serial No.
has been given in the counter affidavit, in which the name of the
applicant's figures and his serial No. indicated against his
name is 97. 117tradesmen only appeared for the trade test on
that date but the applicant did not appear on that date. There is
thus evidence to support the contention of the respondents. On
the other hand, there is nothing to corroborate the statement of
the applicant that he did not have knowledge of the trade test
held in July 2001. In the absence of not having participated in
the trade test in July 2001, he did not qualify for grant of
financial upgradation on the basis of having qualified the trade
test in the first attempt and under which 8 employees were
given the benefit of ACP w.e.f the date of their eligibility on
completion of 12 years of regular service, based on the
relaxation given under the Ministry of Defence letter dated
29.06.2010 (Annexure A-3).
11. We therefore find that it was the applicant who missed the
opportunity of appearing in the examination on 17.07.2001
despite his name being included on serial No. 97 of the nominal
roll of 228 tradesmen who were eligible to appear in the test.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the financial upgradation
could be granted to the applicant only w.e.f. November 2001
when he passed the trade test. We also find there has been no
discrimination between the applicant and the 8 employees who
were granted the benefit of financial upgradation on
completion of 12years of regular service under the Ministry of
Defence letter dated 29.06.2010.
13. in view of above, we see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order dated 19.01.2012 at Annexure A-1 and the
speaking order passed by the respondentsdated07.02.2012
(Annexure A-2). The applicant has not been able to make out a
case in his favour and hence this OA cannot be allowed.
14. In effect, OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs."
12. It has been argued by Mr. A.K. Trivedi, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner,
that he was called to appear for the trade test only in November, 2001 and
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 6 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
not July 2001. He states that he passed the trade test in his first attempt in
November 2001 and, therefore, INTUC made a representation for relaxation
of the condition for the grant of benefit from date of passing of trade test in
respect of 15 persons including the Petitioner. He states that the relaxation of
the condition only with respect to 8 persons is arbitrary as he is similarly
situated and ought to have been granted the relaxation as well.
13. Per contra, Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Ld. CGSC submits that under the
ACP Scheme, the financial upgradation is only available to the next
promotional hierarchy and not the higher placement. Therefore, the
Petitioner is required to mandatorily undergo the trade test under the ACP
Scheme. It is because of his deliberate non-appearance in the trade test that
the Petitioner along with six others has suffered such benefit under the ACP
Scheme. The same is evident from the fact that his name appeared in the
rolls for the test conducted in July 2001.
14. The Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced by the
Government of India with the aim and objective of granting of upgradation
to employees after completion of 12 years/ 24 years of service in case they
were not granted regular promotion and in case they were stagnating in the
same pay scale. It is an undisputed fact that the ACP Scheme provides that
an employee shall be entitled for grant of 1st upgradation and 2nd upgradation
only if they fulfill requisite qualification/ criteria for promotion under the
relevant recruitment rules.
15. In the present case for promotion to the next higher post, the trade test
was mandatory and, again, it is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner in the
present case, Rajesh Sharma, was not able to qualify the trade test in his first
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 7 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
attempt in July 2001. He was able to qualify the trade test only in the month
of November 2001. Therefore, the Respondent Union of India was justified
in granting him the financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme the
moment he qualified the trade test. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the question of interference with the Order passed by the CAT in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise.
Facts and averments in W.P(C) No. 12375/2015
16. The Respondents were appointed as Telecom Mechanics in the offices
of Respondent No. 3 on 26.10.1987 (for first Respondent) and 28.04.1988
(for remaining Respondents). They cleared their trade test on 06.07.2000
and were therefore granted benefit of the ACP Scheme from the said date.
The intervening facts being the same as in the W.P(C) No. 11525/2015, the
employer declined to grant benefit of financial upgradation to the
Respondent employees vide its letter dated 21.08.2012. The Respondents
filed OA No. 1697/2013 claiming financial upgradation under the ACP
Scheme with effect from April 2000/Oct 1999 by extending the relaxation of
the condition of passing the supervisory trade test prior to grant of ACP
benefits.
17. In terms of its Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2019, CAT partly
allowed the OA of the Respondents holding as follows: -
"5. The very purpose of introduction of ACP was to ensure
that the employees of various categories who were, otherwise
eligible to be promoted, do not face stagnation for want of
vacancies or for similar reasons; for a period of 12 years or 24
years, as the case may be. The benefit in the form of
enhancement of pay structure equivalent to that of a promotion
can. Be extended in such cases. It is axiomatic that the benefits
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 8 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
would be available, if only, the concerned employee was
otherwise eligible to be promoted but was not extended
promotion for want of vacancies or promotional avenues. In
other words, if an employee did not hold or acquire the
qualification for promotion, the mere passage of 12 years does
not become a ground for extending the benefit of ACP.
6. It is not in dispute that the passing of trade test by
Technicians is necessary for promotion to a higher post. Such
tests were held much before the ACP was introduced. For one
reason or the other, the applicants do not seem to have either
appeared or cleared the same. After the introduction of ACP,
trade test was held on 06.07.2000 and the applicants cleared
the same. The respondents were extended the benefit of the ACP
to the applicants with effect from that date.
7. Reliance is placed by the applicants on the judgment of
Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.38/2013 dated
26.06.2015 and the judgment of Gujarat High Court affirming
the same in Special Civil Application No. 1161/2016 dated
17.01.20 17. The Ministry of Defence issued a Memorandum
dated04.01.2002, clarifying the situation, which reads
asunder:-
"A reference was sent to DOPT for one time
relaxation from passing of Trade Test for granting
ACPfrom09.8'.99 i.e., date of implementation of
ACP Scheme if the employees are otherwise
eligible.
2. DOPT has clarified that as a special case the
employees who qualify the trade test in first
attempt after 9.8.99 may be allowed benefit of ACP
from 9.8.99 only and not from the date of passing
of trade test. However, employees who qualify in
the trade test in subsequent attempts will be
allowed financial upgradation only from the date
of passing of trade test. In no case, the benefit
should be given to an individual w.e.f. 09.8.99,
who had earlier appeared in the Trade Test before
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 9 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
09.8.99 but failed or has not appeared in trade test
at all or has not otherwise passed the trade test.
3. In future, the required trade lest should be held
well in time as per planned calendar so that it is
held before an employee completes 12/24 years of
service for grant of financial upgradation under
ACPs."
8. From the perusal of this, it is clear that if an individual
has failed to appear or to clear the trade test conducted before
09.08.1999, he would not to be eligible to be extended the
benefit from any date earlier to the one on which he acquired
qualification or cleared the test. The Ahmedabad. Bench of the
Tribunal took into account, the order passed by that very
Tribunal in OA No.101/2010. That was a case in which the
applicant cleared the test for the first time after it was
conducted, whereas the applicant in OA No.38/2013 failed to
clear the test in earlier examinations. The analogy was not
similar, but still the relief was granted. We have got our own
reservation about the correctness of the order affirmed by the
Hon'ble High Court. Be that as it may, the difference in the
instant case is meagre and is only in terms of months.
9. We, therefore, partly allow the OA, directing that the
applicants shall be entitled to be extended to the benefits of
1stACP from the date on which the completed 12 years of
service as Technicians, but the financial benefits shall be
extended only from the date on which they acquired the
qualification. The differential amount in this behalf shall be
paid to the applicants within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. There shall be no order as to costs."
18. Mr. Amit Anand, ld. Counsel for the Union, states that the
Respondents had appeared for trade tests conducted before 09.08.1999, but
failed to clear the same. The test was only cleared when it was conducted on
06.07.2000. He has vehemently argued that it is undisputed that benefits of
ACP Scheme can only be given where the person was eligible for promotion
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 10 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
but could not be promoted due to administrative exigencies. The trade test is
a requisite to be promoted to the next grade and, therefore, passing it is
imperative to be eligible to seek benefit of the ACP scheme. That being the
intent of the ACP Scheme, the fact that Respondents failed their attempts
prior to passing the attempt on 06.07.2000 cannot imply that they get the
benefit of the clarification dated 04.01.2001.
19. Mr. A.K. Trivedi, ld. Counsel for the Respondents has opposed the
Petitioners arguments contending that the Respondents have cleared the first
attempt after the introduction of the ACP Scheme. When the scheme was not
in place before 09.08.1999, the question of previous attempts being
considered does not arise.
Issues for consideration
20. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The core issue in both the petitions is essentially the same. In WP(C)
11525/2015, the Petitioner was eligible to take the trade test in July 2001,
but failed to appear for the same and cleared the test in November 2001. In
WP(C) No. 12375/2022, the Respondents appeared for the trade test prior to
introduction of the Scheme, but cleared it only on 06.07.2000.
21. The focal aspect for determination before this Court is whether in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of their respective cases, the employees in
the present writ petitions ought to be given benefit of the ACP Scheme from
the date of passing of their trade tests.
Analysis and Conclusion
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 11 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
22. The right to be granted financial upgradation from due date upon
passing of the trade test on first attempt arises from the policy framed by the
DOPT in terms of the clarification dated 04.01.2001. The relevant excerpt of
the clarification is reproduced hereunder: -
"A reference was sent to DOPT for one time relaxation from
passing of Trade Test for granting ACP from 08.8.99 i.e. date
of implementation of ACP Scheme if the employees are
otherwise eligible.
2. DOPT has clarified that as a special case the employees
who qualify the trade test in first attempt after9.8.99 may be
allowed benefit of ACP from 9.8.99 only and not from the date
of passing of trade test. However, employees who qualify in
the trade test in subsequent attempts will be allowed financial
upgradation only from the date of passing of trade test. In no
case, the benefit should be given to an individual w.e.f.
09.8.99, who had earlier appeared in the Trade Test before
09.8.99 but failed or has not appeared in trade test at all or
has not otherwise passed the trade test."
23. It flows from this clarification that financial upgradation is to be
accorded to an employee who clears the trade test from 09.08.1999 in case
they pass it in the first attempt. It is also clarified that in case of non-
appearance or failure in attempts taken before 09.08.1999, benefit cannot be
given from 09.08.1999. In the considered opinion of this Court, insofar the
implication of the clarification read with the Order of Ministry of Defence
dated 29.06.2010 on the case of the present employees is concerned, the
policy makes it clear that: -
(a) non-appearance in the first attempt trade test renders an
employee ineligible to claim benefit from 09.08.1999 or
alternately, due date of promotion, and
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 12 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
(b) employees failing in trade tests held before 09.08.1999 cannot
be given benefit of the policy from 09.08.1999 or alternately
the due date of promotion.
It is with this understanding that this Court must examine the orders of the
CAT in both matters.
24. It is amply clear that from Paras 10 and 11 of the Order of the CAT
under challenge in WP(C) No. 11525/2015 that that the name of the
Petitioner was on the rolls for the trade test conducted on 17.07.2001 and
that he did not appear for it. Having missed the first attempt, it is further
clear that he appeared and passed in the second attempt. The Petitioner has
failed to discharge before this Court the onus upon him to show that he was
in fact unaware of the test being conducted in July 2001. He has, therefore,
been granted benefit of the Scheme from the date of passing of the trade test.
25. On the other hand, in the Order of the CAT that is under challenge in
WP(C) No. 12375/2015, the CAT has come to a perverse finding. While
acknowledging the intent behind the ACP and the contents of the
clarification dated 04.01.2001, the CAT proceeds to allow benefit of the
ACP to the Respondents merely because in its opinion the differential time
period is negligible. In our opinion, this does not serve as a ground to
contravene the clear directions made in the clarification and is, therefore,
untenable.
26. It is trite law that an employee cannot be granted financial
upgradation without fulfilling the requisite qualification prescribed by the
executive policy. In Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Krishan Kumar
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 13 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
Vij & Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 701 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
following issue: -
"2. Precisely, we are required to consider whether in light of
the order/circular issued by the Appellant Bhakra Beas
Management Board (hereinafter shall be called as "Board"),
Respondent 1 employee would be entitled to benefit of higher
scale of pay/upgradation/stepping up of salary sans
prerequisite qualification for the grant of the same."
In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
proceeded to hold the following: -
"22. We have already mentioned hereinabove with regard to
Clause 2 of the 1990 Order read with Regulation 9 which
restricts the benefit only to directly recruited Assistant
Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers, meaning thereby that
one must possess the requisite qualification as prescribed under
the Regulations, then only the benefit would accrue to the
employee, not otherwise. The Note appended thereto clearly
stipulates that even those employees who were promoted under
Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4) shall be deemed
to have been appointed by direct recruitment. This legal fiction
is limited. It is applicable only to those employees who have
been promoted in conformity with the provisions contained in
Clause 4. Thus, the employees who had passed both Parts (A)
and (B) of the AMIE examination and were promoted against
9% posts reserved for that class were fictionally treated as
direct recruits. Thus, it clearly stipulates that only those
Assistant Engineers who were either directly recruited or had
acquired the requisite qualifications prescribed for direct
recruitment were chosen to be granted higher scale if they had
been promoted against the post falling within the quota of 9%
of the cadre strength of the said post.
23. The 1990 Order contemplates that it is to be followed as
per regulation which provides that only such persons as have
been promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation
10(4) shall be treated as direct recruits. In other words, it does
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 14 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
not apply to the promotees irrespective of their academic
qualifications nor can they be treated on a par with the direct
recruits. There was a purpose for treating them so, otherwise, it
would have the effect of violating the constitutional mandate
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, on
the premise that unequals have been treated as equals. It is with
that intention, to avoid criticism and future litigation that such
persons who possessed qualifications for direct recruitment and
could be promoted against the posts falling vacant, would
become entitled to claim the benefit. Since Respondent 1 did not
fall in this category, obviously, he was not entitled to the higher
scale.
24. Thus, there appears to be no illegality committed by the
Board in rejecting Respondent 1's representation. So, in our
considered opinion, the High Court has clearly erred in setting
aside and quashing the same.
25. The critical examination of the impugned judgment passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court completely defeats
primary purpose of the 1990 Order and provisions applicable
to the employees of the Board. No doubt, it is true that the 1990
Order was issued only with an intention to remove the
stagnation but this would not give blanket or absolute right to
any employee to be entitled to higher pay scale even if he does
not fulfil prerequisite qualifications for holding the higher post.
In other words, if he possesses the required qualifications but is
unable to get the higher post on account of non-availability of
such post, then only he can be categorised as suffering from
stagnation as per Order of 23-4-1990. 26. Obviously, an
employee who does not fulfil the qualification as per Regulation
10(4) for the higher post would be ineligible for promotion
and/or higher pay scale. In that eventuality, such an employee
cannot complain of stagnation. Moreover, even while adopting
the 1990 Order, it was made clear by the Board vide its Order
dated 26-6-1992 that the time-bound promotional/devised
promotional scales after 9/16 years' service are admissible only
in respect of the posts in which the initial induction is through
direct recruitment.
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 15 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
xxxxxxxx
31. If the interpretation of the High Court to the 1990 Order is
to be implemented, then it would lead to unsustainable
consequences. It would then mean that every Assistant Engineer
irrespective of his conduct, qualifications, performance or
behaviour would become entitled to the higher scale on
completion of particular length of service. If that be so, then
even those employees with poor service record and doubtful
integrity would also become entitled to claim higher scale
merely because they had completed a particular length of
service. If such an interpretation is to be given to the 1990
Order, then it would not only be improper but would also be
against public policy and interest of the Board. It is too well
settled that a statute or any enacting provision must be so
construed as to make it effective and operative. Any such
construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be
avoided.
xxxxxxxx
39. At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that the effect of
the 1990 Order read with the Regulations would be that only
those employees who fulfilled the prerequisite qualification for
further promotion along with certain length of service as
required would only be entitled to the benefit as per the 1990
Order. The other Assistant Engineers, even though they had
completed the requisite length of service would not be entitled
to claim the benefit, unless they had fulfilled the basic
qualifications and minimum experience as required."
27. The aforesaid judgment makes it evident that an employee claiming
the benefit under a scheme for financial upgradation, such as the ACP
Scheme in the present case, has to fulfill the requirement/ terms and
conditions required for promotion to the next higher post and, in both the
present cases, the requirement for promotion was passing the respective
trade test and the employees were given the benefit of higher pay-scale in
W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 16 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:07.12.2022
12:54:42
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005358
W.P.(C.) No. 11525/2015 from November, 2001 i.e. from the date he has
qualified the trade test.
28. In the other connected matter i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 12375/2014, the
Respondents have cleared their trade test of on 06.07.2000, and they were
granted benefit from the aforesaid date only.
29. However, the Tribunal has allowed the application holding that they
are entitled for grant of ACP on completion of 12 years of service even from
the date prior to passing of their trade test, and, therefore, the finding arrived
at by the Tribunal in W.P.(C.) No. 12375/2015 is erroneous in the light of
the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhakra Beas
Management Board (supra). Hence, W.P.(C.) No. 11525/2015 filed by Mr.
Rajesh Sharma is dismissed, and the other connected matter filed by the
Union of India, i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 12375/2015 is allowed.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
NOVEMBER 02, 2022 W.P.(C.) Nos. 11525/2015 & 12375/2019 Page 17 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:07.12.2022 12:54:42