Heard.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 5.11.2015 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) by which his claim for grant of benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed in April, 1982 on the post of Sub Inspector and thereafter was promoted as Inspector in June, 1994. The Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission on 1.10.1999 in pursuance to which after completion of 24 years of service, the petitioner was granted financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in April, 2006. Thereafter, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced as per recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission vide letter dated 10.6.2009, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which contemplates grant of higher pay on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of service. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of third MACP after completion of 30 years of service i.e. in April, 2012 by granting Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-. When the petitioner was not granted benefit of third MACP, he approached this Court by means of the present writ petition and during pendency of the present petition, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by means of the order dated 5.11.2015, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the impugned order dated 5.11.2015 is a non speaking order yet the reasons are forthcoming by means of additional counter affidavit dated 25.7.2017 filed by the respondents in which it has been contended in paragraph 5 that benefit of third MACP was to be granted provided an employee was having the ACRs of 'Good' for the previous 5 years. It is stated in the additional counter affidavit that the petitioner's ACRs were seen from the years 2009 to 2013-14 but he was not found suitable for being granted the benefit of third MACP after completion of 30 years service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that along with the rejoinder affidavit, the ACRs of the petitioner from the year 2010-11 to 2014-15 have been filed which indicate the ACRs of the petitioner as 'Good' for the year 2010-11, 'Good' for the year 2011-12, 'Very Good' for the year 2012-13, 'Very Good' for the year 2013-14 and 'Very Good' for the year 2014-15 and thus it is submitted that the petitioner was meeting the benchmark criteria of having 'Good' and consequently there was no impediment in the grant of benefit of third MACP to the petitioner after completion of 30 years of service. It has also been contended that once the criteria of 5 years of 'Good' has been met in the year 2014-15, as such even though the petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2018 yet the respondents can very well grant the benefit of MACP to the petitioner with effect from the financial year 2015.
On the other hand, Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel holding brief of Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the respondents contends that during his service, the petitioner had got injured and consequently he has been shifted to the post of Chief Commercial Supervisor which has been done with effect from 25.4.2016.
Having heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties, it is not clear as to from where the respondents have arrived of seeing the ACRs of 5 years for granting the benefit of third MACP. Even if the said criteria is accepted then as the petitioner completed 30 years of service in April, 2012, consequently his ACRs from the year 2007 should have been seen by them but it is the specific case of the respondents that ACRs of the petitioner from the year 2009 onwards have been seen. In case the respondents have seen the service record of subsequent year then it is not understood as to what the impediment was with the respondents in seeing the ACRs of the petitioner from the year 2010 onwards up till 2014-15 when the petitioner had the entry of Good/Very Good so as to entitle him for grant of benefit of third MACP.
As the aforesaid aspect of the matter is not clear, let a supplementary affidavit be filed by the respondents indicating the aforesaid aspect of the matter for which learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks time to do so.
List immediately thereafter.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Rakesh