Full Text
W.P.(C) 8983/2014
RANJIT SINGH & ORS Represented by:
PURSHOTAM SINGH & ORS
Mr.Vinod Sharma, Advocates Respondents Mr.Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Ankur Sharma, Advocate
Petitioners Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sharma and Mr.Vinod Sharma, Advocates
Respondents Mr.Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Ankur Sharma, Advocate
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
13.02.2015
ORDER
1. Learned counsel who appears for the respondents states that he has obtained instructions in the matter and the respondents do not desire to file any counter affidavit. W.P.(C) Nos.8983/2014 & 8984/2014 2015:DHC:10935-DB J
2. We note that the two writ petitions were listed for preliminary hearing on December 19, 2014 when counsel as above appeared for the respondents since advance copy of the writ petitions were served upon the respondents before they were filed.
3. The petitioners are claiming benefit of the ACP scheme notified on August 9, 1999 which was followed by the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme issued on May 19, 2009.
4. The ACP scheme envisaged first financial upgradation after 12 years service if promotion was not earned during a said period due to non availability of a promotional post It envisaged a second financial upgradation after 24 years service if second promotion could not be earned due to non-availability of a post. Under the MACP scheme the first upgradation was to after 10 years if promotion could not be earned in 10 years due to non-availability of a promotional post, second financial upgradation was to be given on completion of20 years service due to non availability ofapromotion post and third financial upgradation on rendering 30 years service if the third promotion could not be earned due to non availability ofa promotion post.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the entitlement under the ACP and MACP schemes, to be considered for the financial upgradations as noted above is not being disputed by the respondents. However, the upgradations are not automatic. The entitlement has to be earned on the standard of fitness which means that the person concerned should qualify for being promoted. The reason being, non-availability ofthe promotion post is the cause for stagnation which was to be remedied by the ACP and MACP schemes. W.P.(C) Nos.8983/2014 &8984/2014 p^gg ^of[3] V I
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute this stand on the interpretations of the two schemes stated by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that since facts concerning each petition in the writ petitions need to be verified with reference to the service record and fitness determi;ied, the two writ petitions may be disposed of requiring the same to be treated as a representation to the respondents who would look into the service record of each petitioner and passthe necessary orders within six weeks from today.
8. Such petitioners who are found entitled to the benefit of ACP and MACP schemes would be granted the increments from the date they were eligible to receive the same. Such not found entitled would be intimated said fact with reasons for the conclusion.
9. No costs.
10. Dasti. ^ PRADEEP NAWDRMOG, J. FEBRUARY 13, 2015 a^Rbh