Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the part of paragraph 2 (1)(i) Government Order bearing no. 202014/D.U.S.-62 (M) 2008 (TC) dated 22.12.2011 as ultra vires and discriminatory and further seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by respondent no. 4.
The petitioner is a Constable,appointed in September, 1994.
With the object to provide notional promotion, a Government Order dated 4.5.2010 has been issued, which has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.12.2008. It provides that those who have been appointed directly and completed 10 years of satisfactory service would be entitled for first Assured Career Progression (ACP). The same Government Order further provides that second ACP would be available on completion of 8 years satisfactory service after the first ACP. The said Government Order has been amended by the Government Order dated 22.12.2011. By the amendment, clause 1(2)(i)(kha) has been amended. From the amendment, it appears that eight years' period has been substituted by six years, meaning thereby, that those who have completed satisfactory service of six years after getting first ACP would be entitled for second ACP. The petitioner has been granted first ACP on 1.12.2008 and, therefore, as per the Government Order, on completion of six years service, he would be entitled for second ACP in December, 2014 while it appears that he has been granted second ACP on 28.4.2013. By the order dated 24.9.2013, the order granting second ACP on 28.4.2013 has been cancelled. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57464 of 2013, which has been allowed on 11.10.2013 on the ground that before passing the order, opportunity of hearing has not been given. The impugned order dated 24.9.2013 has been quashed, however, liberty has been given to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance to law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 25.11.2013 has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the Government Order dated 22.12.2011, it has been observed that the petitioner would be entitled for second ACP after completion of six years of service from the date of granting of first ACP i.e. in the year 2014 and accordingly order granting second ACP on 28.4.2013 has been cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause 1 (2)(i) (kha) of the Government Order dated 22.12.2011 is ultra vires and discriminatory and, therefore, the order dated 25.11.2013 based on the said Government Order is also illegal. He submitted that the petitioner has been a direct appointee and has completed 14 years of service and, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of four years service. The clause is wholly arbitrary. The petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of second ACP on completion of 16 years service.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.
By the Government Order dated 4.5.2010, which is made applicable from 1.12.2008, for the first time, the scheme of ACP has been introduced providing benefit of ACP. This scheme has been brought to enable those employees, who could not get regular promotion. Clause 1(2)(i) provides that in case of direct recruitment, the first ACP shall be provided on completion of satisfactory service of 10 years, second ACP after 18 years and third ACP after 26 years. Clause (ka) provides that first ACP shall be provided after completion of 10 years satisfactory service. Clause (kha) provides that on completion of 8 years satisfactory service from the date of first ACP, second ACP would be provided. The aforesaid Government Order dated 4.5.2010 has been amended and substituted by the Government Order dated 22.11.2011. There is no major change. In clause 1(2)(i) in place of 18 years, 16 years has been substituted and in clause 1(2)(i)(kha) in place of 8 years, 6 years has been substituted. Under the Government Order dated 22.11.2011, second ACP would be provided on completion of six years satisfactory service from the date of grant of first ACP. In effect, the period of grant of second ACP has been reduced from 8 years to 6 years. The petitioner has been granted first ACP under the Government Order dated 4.5.2010 on 1.12.2008. When the first ACP was granted, the petitioner had not disputed the same and had accepted first ACP under the said Government Order. The second ACP would be available under the aforesaid Government Order under which first ACP has been granted, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge clause (kha) of the Government Order, which provides grant of second ACP after completion of six years service from the date of grant of first ACP. It is always open to the Government to make a policy for granting ACP in a manner Government think proper. If the Government has taken a policy decision to grant second ACP after completion of six years service, such policy cannot be said to be arbitrary, which is applicable to all the employees. Thus, it is not discriminatory.
The petitioner is not able to make out any case that how clause 1(2)(i) is ultra vires.
I am of the view that no ground has been made out to challenge part of paragraph 2 (1)(i) Government Order bearing no. 202014/D.U.S.-62 (M) 2008 (TC) dated 22.12.2011.
In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order dated 25.11.2013, which is based on Government Order dated 22.12.2011.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2014 OP