Petitioner challenged denial of Assured Career Progression benefits and sought retrospective promotion. Court held service record, including disciplinary suspensions, negates entitlement to ACP. Retrospective promotion claim rejected due to regularization timing and lack of requisite qualifications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3620 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chanda Kesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Gopal Tripathi Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard the petitioner who appears in person and Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi who appears for the respondents.
This petition has been preferred impugning an order dated 22 December 2018 in terms of which the claim of the petitioner for grant of ACP benefits has been negatived.The petitioner has sought a further writ for being promoted from the year 1994 and for the grant of seniority pay scale.
Dealing with his claim for the grant of Assured Career Progression benefits, the respondents have taken into consideration the adverse entries which stood recorded against the petitioner in the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 200809. However Sri Tripathi fairly concedes that the recital to the above effect as appearing in the impugned order is factually incorrect since the only adverse entry which stood recorded against the petitioner was for the year 2002-03. Sri Tripathi states that no adverse entries were recorded for the years 200001, 2001-02. Insofar as the adverse entry awarded in the year 2008-09 is concerned, Sri Tripathi states that the same was set aside in appeal. It is further evident from a reading of the impugned order that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18 December 2018 on a charge of serious misconduct and during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings retired from the service of respondents upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is also worthy to note here that earlier on 13 October 2005 the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents. This led to the petitioner preferring a writ petition which was allowed by the Court on 22 May 2006 and
the order of dismissal was set aside. Although liberty was granted to the respondents to undertake fresh disciplinary proceedings, the same does not appear to have been proceeded with further. Earlier the petitioner had also laid challenge to the action of the respondents denying him salary and allowances for the period between 13 October 2005 to 15 July 2006 during which the order of dismissal operated. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of the Court on 26 October 2009 and that judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal on 08 August 2011.
Be that as it may, the principal question which falls for consideration is whether the services of the petitioner could be viewed as being satisfactory so as to entitle him to the grant of the ACP benefits. The record of service as encapsulated in the order impugned clearly establishes that it was not. The petitioner was also undisputedly serving out an order of suspension pending disciplinary proceedings when he attained the age of superannuation. On a conspectus of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the view as taken by the respondents insofar as the entitlement of the petitioner to the grant of ACP benefits is concerned. Insofar as the claim for promotion is concerned, the Court notes that the petitioner upon being regularised in service in 2003 has claimed promotion from the year 1994. This cannot possibly appeal to reason. Dealing with that claim of promotion on the post of Typist, the respondents have noted that the petitioner although granted liberty to seek such promotion failed to qualify the requirements of typing abilities as was stipulated under the relevant regulations.
In light of the above, the Court finds no merit in the petition which shall stand dismissed .
Order Date :- 26.4.2019/faraz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits given adverse disciplinary entries and pending suspension.
Whether the petitioner can claim promotion retrospectively from 1994 given regularization in 2003 and failure to meet typing ability requirements.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the respondents' view that the petitioner's service record does not satisfy requirements for ACP benefits.
Chanda Kesh Yadav
State Of U.P.
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
