SI/TELE SH. ANIL BOSE P & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to grant first Financial Upgradation w.e.f the date they completed twelve years of regular service with consequential benefits including arrears etc. and also 2014:DHC:6593-DB to grant the 2nd Financial Upgradation under the MACP Scheme to the petitioner No.6 herein, w.e.f. 1.8.2009 on his completion of 20 years of regular service. Furthermore, they seek quashing of the reply dated 13.5.2014 sent by the respondent No. 3, whereby their request for the grant of first Financial Upgradation was rejected.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at the preliminary stage.

3. An Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. Vide Circular No.1065 dated 8.10.1999, issued by the Directorate General, ITBP, the benefits of Financial Upgradation are admissible only to those personnels who are otherwise eligible for promotion, in all respects, but could not be promoted due to the non availability of vacancies in higher post despite the fact that they had rendered 12/24 years of service. These Petitioners undoubtedly had completed 12 years of regular service in the year 2000- 2001, but by that time, they had not qualified the departmental promotion courses (D List Test), which was mandatory for promotion to the next higher rank (SI/RO) and thus, were not entitled for the grant of first Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme. These Petitioners were granted Financial Upgradations under the first ACP Scheme in the pay scale of 5500-175-9000 in the year 2005-2006, on the completion of 12 years of service and also after they had qualified the said mandatory test.

4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not on account of any fault on the part of the Petitioners that they did not qualify the said promotional test, as it was incumbent upon the respondents to have detailed these Petitioners for the said test on the completion of 12 years, is devoid of any merit and substance. Indisputably, neither did the Petitioners challenge the decision of the respondents in denying them the first Financial Upgradation on the completion of 12 years of service nor did they allege any inaction on the part of the respondents in not detailing them for undertaking the mandatory promotional courses and now, after a gap of 13-14 years, they cannot knock on the door of justice belatedly. The cause of action to seek grant of first Financial Upgradation benefits firstly arose in the year 2000-2001 or at best in the year 2005 when the same was granted to them after a gap of five years and no challenge at any stage was made by them to claim their entitlement for the first Financial Upgradation even without qualifying the said promotional course. The present petition is thus not maintainable due to inordinate and unexplained delay and laches on their part in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the present petition merits outright dismissal on this sole ground.

5. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, reliance on which was placed by learned counsel for the petitioners will not help the Petitioners as the cause of action which arose in their favour, to claim the First Financial Upgradation clearly arose in the year 2000 or at best in the year 2005 and the same cannot be held to be a continuing wrong. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J DECEMBER 01, 2014 pkb