Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to grant rank Naik/Head ConstabIe/Havildar and pay scale to them at par with their counterparts in other Central Police Organisations with effect from 1.1.1986 and to direct the second respondent to grant first financial upgradation to the petitioners under the Assured Career Progression Scheme as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. The petitioners sought direction on the second respondent to grant second and third financial upgradations under MACP Scheme as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC. The petitioners also prayed to set aside various orders W.P.(C) No.790 of 2017. Page 13 P a g e | 14 granting second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme, second and third financial upgradations under MACP Scheme.

[5] Per contra, the learned counsel for the Union of India raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction of Manipur High Court. The next submission of the learned counsel for the Union of India is that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches.

[6] The learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the peace establishment is revised every 10 years, although the petitioners were enrolled prior to implementation of RPE-2003, however, they are now governed by the said RPE alike other Force personnel. The rank, pay and allowances have been given to the petitioners as applicable to all Assam Rifles personnel as per the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time commensurate to their rank and as per Recruitment Rules. The rank structure has also been approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Recruitment Rules framed accordingly. He would submit W.P.(C) No.790 of 2017. Page 23 P a g e | 24 that the official respondents are bound to follow the Recruitment Rules, Charter of duties cannot change the criteria which appears to be more comprehensive from the petitioners' point of view. [7] The learned counsel for the Union of India next submitted that the petitioners are trying to project wrong perception at their own convenience regarding the grant of ACP/MACP before this Court to gain undue sympathy and advantage. The petitioners were also granted financial upgradation of next higher rank under ACP/MACP Scheme as applicable to them. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that ACP/MACP has nothing to do with bringing parity in pay scale and rank structure of all CPO is bereft of merit.

[33] On a perusal of the said judgment, this Court finds that the facts and circumstances of the case in W.P.No.947 of 2017 are entirely different, as the petitioners therein were technically qualified and good experience holders. Taking note of the said fact, this Court extended the benefit to them. However, the present case is entirely different and therefore, the judgment in W.P.No.947 of 2017 will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

W.P.(C) No.790 of 2017. Page 38 P a g e | 39 [34] The petitioners have also relied upon the order passed in W.P.(C) No.256 of 2012 in support of their claim. In the said writ petition, the petitioners demanded that they should be granted the benefits of ACP/MACP Scheme from the date of enrollment by treating their remusteration to Havildar (Cipher) as direct entry. However, in the instant case, the prayer of the petitioners to grant appropriate rank and pay scale to them at par with their counterparts in other CAPFs with effect from 1.1.1986 and also to grant ACP/MACP as per the recommendations of the 5th and 6th CPC. The prayers of the petitioners in both the cases are distinct with each other and not similar in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are trying to place irrelevant facts before this Court to gain undue sympathy and more over, they are neither remustered nor are they equal in qualification to operators in CAPFs. [35] As stated supra, the petitioners were enrolled as Rifleman (ORL) and Naik/Havildar are promotional posts on acquiring of requisite promotional criteria and availability of vacancy and not on passing of Class III, II and I. Further, all Class III, II and I examinations are conducted by the Department on Government expenditure and the petitioners are not acquiring the qualification on their own expenditure. W.P.(C) No.790 of 2017. Page 39 P a g e | 40 [36] One thing needs to be noted that the Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 9.8.1999 introduced ACP Scheme with effect from 9.8.1999 and in terms of the Scheme and the extension of the benefit of next higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme will be granted in accordance with the existing hierarchy and the first financial upgradation shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second financial upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial upgradation subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. Condition number 5.1 of the Scheme provides that the two financial upgradations under the Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotion during the prescribed period (12 and 24 years) have been availed by the employees. If an employee has already received one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the Scheme. [37] The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, vide Office Memorandum dated 19.5.2009'introduced MACP Scheme with effect from 1.9.2008 under which it was directed that there shall be three financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 40, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. Financial upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years W.P.(C) No.790 of 2017. Page 40 P a g e | 41 continuously in the same grade pay. MACP envisaged merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section I Part A of the first schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. As far as the issue of grant of ACP is concerned, the same benefits have already been extended to ORL and granted ACP/MACP on fulfilment of criteria prescribed by the Ministry. Since the petitioners have been granted the benefit of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme and MACP as per the Government policy, now they cannot claim upgradations under ACP as per the recommendations of 5th CPC and MACP as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC.