Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a writ petition filed by the Union of India and others challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, dated 31st January 2024. The CAT had allowed six Original Applications (O.A. Nos.30, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 32 of 2018) filed by Senior Supervisors (Data Entry Operators) in the Census Department, directing the department to grant them the 2nd Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit in PB-3 Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-. The applicants had been denied this benefit on the ground that they did not possess the requisite educational qualification (Graduation with Mathematics/Statistics/Commerce/Economics) prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the promotional post of Assistant Director (Data Centre). The CAT held that the ACP Scheme is a financial upgradation scheme and not a promotion, and therefore, the Recruitment Rules for the promotional post cannot be applied to deny the ACP benefit. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the CAT order, observing that the ACP Scheme is intended to provide financial relief to employees who have stagnated due to lack of promotional avenues, and the educational qualification for the promotional post is irrelevant for the purpose of ACP. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the CAT's direction to grant the 2nd ACP benefit to the respondent and other similarly situated employees.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme - Financial Upgradation - Educational Qualification - The denial of 2nd ACP benefit to Senior Supervisors on the ground that they did not possess the educational qualification prescribed for the promotional post of Assistant Director (Data Centre) under the Recruitment Rules is not sustainable, as ACP is a financial upgradation scheme and not a promotion, and the Recruitment Rules for the promotional post cannot be imported into the ACP Scheme. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme - Recruitment Rules - The Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Data Centre) prescribe educational qualifications for direct recruitment and promotion, but the ACP Scheme does not require the employee to possess the qualification for the higher post; the benefit is granted based on length of service and satisfactory performance. (Paras 5-10)
C) Service Law - Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - Grade Pay - The 2nd ACP benefit in PB-3 Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- is admissible to Senior Supervisors/DEOs who have completed 24 years of service, irrespective of the educational qualification for the promotional post. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the denial of 2nd ACP benefit to Senior Supervisors on the ground that they did not possess the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Director (Data Centre) under the Recruitment Rules is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT order dated 31st January 2024. The court directed the petitioners to grant the 2nd ACP benefit to the respondent and other similarly situated employees in accordance with the CAT order.
Law Points
- Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme
- Recruitment Rules
- Educational Qualification
- Promotional Post vs. Financial Upgradation
- Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules
- 2008
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 174
Writ Petition No. 12070 of 2025
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ, Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Adv. Mr. Abhijet Joshi, Adv. Ms. Varsha Sawant, Adv. Mr. Adarsha Vyas, Adv. Ms. Rama Gupta for the petitioners; Adv. Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Adv. Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy and Adv. Ms. Seema Sorte for the respondent.
Union of India and Others
Mrs. Shaila Shyamsunder Shringare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) granting 2nd ACP benefit to Senior Supervisors.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (Union of India and others) sought to quash the CAT order dated 31st January 2024 which directed grant of 2nd ACP benefit to the respondent and other applicants.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the CAT order on the ground that the respondent did not possess the requisite educational qualification for the promotional post of Assistant Director (Data Centre) as per Recruitment Rules.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by common order dated 31st January 2024, allowed six Original Applications (O.A. Nos.30, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 32 of 2018) directing the department to grant 2nd ACP benefit to the applicants.
Issues
Whether the denial of 2nd ACP benefit to Senior Supervisors on the ground of lack of educational qualification for the promotional post is legally valid.
Whether the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Data Centre) can be applied to deny ACP benefits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent did not possess the educational qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Data Centre), and therefore, the 2nd ACP benefit in PB-3 Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- was rightly denied.
Respondent argued that the ACP Scheme is a financial upgradation scheme and not a promotion, and the Recruitment Rules for the promotional post cannot be imported into the ACP Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi
The ACP Scheme is a financial upgradation scheme intended to provide relief to employees who have stagnated due to lack of promotional avenues. The educational qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the promotional post is not a condition for grant of ACP benefits. The denial of 2nd ACP on the ground of lack of educational qualification for the promotional post is legally unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The grievance raised by the applicants before the Tribunal was that they were not extended the benefit under 2nd ACP in PB-3 Grade Pay of Rs 5400/- which was admissible to the post of Senior Supervisor/DEOs.
The said benefit was declined to the applicants on the ground that they did not possess requisite educational qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Data Centre).
Procedural History
The respondent and other applicants filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, challenging the order dated 2nd September 2016 and OM dated 10th October 2016 denying 2nd ACP benefit. The CAT allowed the applications by common order dated 31st January 2024. The Union of India and others filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the CAT order.
Acts & Sections
- Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008:
