Allowed

Saroj Rani v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024CWP/3254/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the petitioner's writ petition seeking quashing of an order denying ACPS benefits due to grade pay revision. Held that general pay revision cannot replace financial upgradation under ACPS, entitling the teacher to the third enhancement after 14 years of service.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.04.2024 quashed; petitioner held entitled to 3rd enhancement under ACP Scheme after 14 years of service.

Saroj Rani Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

( 2024:HHC:4271 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No.3254 of 2024

¶5

Date of Decision : 01.07.2024

Saroj Rani

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶10

……Respondents

¶11

Coram:

¶12

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶13

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶14

For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶15

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

¶16

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantial

¶17

relief(s):-

¶18

“i) That the writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the impugned order dated 06.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.2, whereby she has been denied the benefit of ACPS on completion 14 service in the cadre of JBT may kindly be quashed and set aside, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional and against the settled law.

¶19

ii) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to grant financial enhancement/up-gradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of service w.e.f. 09.03.2014 with all consequential benefits in terms of the Notification dated 09.08.2012.”

¶20

¶21

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶22

¶23

( 2024:HHC:4271 )

¶24

The petitioner was appointed as a JBT on adhoc basis on 09.03.1990. The petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 09.03.2000 in the pay scale of Rs.45507220. The petitioner was granted enhancement under the old ACP Scheme w.e.f 09.03.2008. After coming into force of the new ACP Scheme on 09.08.2012, the petitioner was granted second enhancement notionally w.e.f. 09.03.2009.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is qua benefits of ACP Scheme after the completion of 14 years of regular service. The sole reason for non-grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme after completion of 14 years of service is that the Government has increased Grade Pay of JBTs from Rs.3000/- to Rs.4200 in revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.10.2012 vide HP Govt. Finance Department Letter No.Fin(PR)-B(7)-64/2010 dated 26.02.2013. The said increase in the Grade Pay has been treated as enhancement by the respondent/State.

¶26

The issue, as to whether the financial upgradation on account of pay revision /revision of Grade Pay can be a ground to deny benefit of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completion of 4-9-14, as per new ACP Scheme, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors. a/w connected matters , wherein, the Court categorically held that annual increment or general pay revision cannot be considered as financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under the ACP Scheme. The relevant extract of the said judgment is being reproduced herein below:-

¶27

“10. Careful perusal of communication dated 7th July 2014 whereby old ACP scheme came to be replaced by new ACPS, clearly reveals that annul increment or general pay

¶28

¶29

( 2024:HHC:4271 )

¶30

revision shall not be considered as financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under ACPS. If it is so, there appears to be merit in the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of third financial upgradation after their having completed 14 years of service. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of para-5 of the afore letter, which reads as under:-

¶31

“Moreover, the overriding objective on an assured career progression scheme is to ensure at least three financial up-gradations/ enhancements/ promotions to a regular employee in his entire service career. Therefore, in partial modification of earlier orders on ACP schemes it is directed that, once an employee has already got three enhancements / financial upgradations i.e. grant of progression under the new or old ACPS or promotion or any other financial enhancement except the annual increment or the general pay revision based on the pay commission, in fourteen years or more his/her entire service., thereafter, he will not be entitled for placement in next 8 higher grade pay in the ACPS Scheme introduced vide FD’s instructions dated 9th August 2012. However, it is clarified that after availing three enhancements / upgradation/ promotion, an employee will be eligible to take the benefit of normal promotions available in his service career.”

¶32

11. Careful perusal of aforesaid instructions clearly reveals that an employee is granted three enhancements/upgradations/promotion, he/she shall not be eligible for grant of further benefit, if any, under ACPS, but in the case at hand, petitioners after being appointed as JBT though were given two benefits of financial upgradation under ACPS, first benefit was granted under old ACPS after their having completed eight years service, whereas second benefit was granted in their favour after their having completed nine years service under new ACPS and third benefit in terms of new ACPS, for which

¶33

¶34

( 2024:HHC:4271 )

¶35

petitioners have already opted, is being denied on the ground that vide order dated 26.02.2013 grade pay of the petitioners has been enhanced w.e.f. 1.10.2012. However, as observed hereinabove, financial upgradation, if any, on account of pay revision/revision of grade pay cannot be a ground to deny benefit of financial upgradations under ACPS, which become due after completion of four, nine and fourteen years as per new ACPS. Though, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents/State that grade pay of the petitioners was enhanced, as a result of which, their pay was enhanced, but as has been taken note above, financial enhancement on account of annual increment or general pay revision, based on pay commission, is not to be considered while considering the case of an employee for grant of benefit of ACPS. Since, in the case at hand pay of the petitioners came to be enhanced on account of grant of grade pay, 9 benefit of financial upgradation in terms of provision contained under ACPS cannot be denied.”

¶36

In view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed. Impugned Order dated 06.04.2024 (Annexure P-10) is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to the 3^rd enhancement under the ACP Scheme after the completion of 14 years of service.

¶37

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶38

July 01, 2024 (KS)

¶39

( Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

Saroj Rani v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Rani v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmir Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Devi Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dr. Sapna Pathania and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chanderkanta Thakur Vs the Registrar Cooperative Societies and Others

NHAI Vs Devi Ram Alias Devi Chand and Others

Kali Dass Vs Hrtc