stipulated time frame. However, it is not disputed that this delay was attributable to the department’s failure to deputize the petitioner for the course in a timely manner. The petitioner has since completed the said course on 20.05.2015 with a satisfactory grade. This clearly demonstrates the petitioner’s willingness and ability to fulfill the mandatory requirement, which was impeded due to departmental shortcomings. The legal position laid down by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Jai Pal Singh & Others v. Union of India (WP(C) 5539 of 2013) is directly applicable and squarely supports the petitioner’s claim. The court held that employees should not be made to suffer for the department’s failure to provide timely deputation for promotional courses, and denial of ACP benefits on such grounds is unjust. The ACP scheme is a beneficial measure aimed at providing financial upgradation to employees who face stagnation due to limited promotional avenues. It is not a functional promotion and does not create any new post. Therefore, strict compliance with promotional course attendance, which is mandatory for regular promotion, cannot be imposed on ACP benefits so rigidly as to defeat the very object of the scheme. The petitioner’s case finds further support in the fact that 72 other similarly placed individuals were granted the benefit of 2nd ACP despite having completed the promotional course subsequent to the prescribed period, as per the respondent’s order dated 12.05.2014. Denying the petitioner the same benefit in identical circumstances would amount to discrimination and violate principles of natural justice. 13. The scheme should be interpreted liberally and in a manner that advances the welfare of government employees. The petitioner, being placed in Shape-II category on account of obesity, has no control over such medical
