Case Note & Summary
The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court was tasked with answering a reference framed by a Division Bench regarding the circumstances under which benefits under the Assured Progress Scheme (APS) / Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) could be withdrawn on grounds of ineligibility or disqualification. The matter arose from a writ petition filed by a Junior Clerk employed in the District Court establishment, who was granted ACPS benefits in 2001 after completing 12 years of service without promotion. She was required to appear for a qualifying test for promotion to Senior Clerk but failed to achieve the benchmark of 40 marks. Consequently, the employer directed recovery of Rs.2,10,670/- paid under the scheme and discontinuation of benefits. The employee challenged the recovery and stoppage, citing earlier Division Bench judgments in Shrirang Atmaram Nikam and Ramesh Samhari More which held that non-selection in promotion process does not render an employee ineligible or disqualified, and that the test was ‘whether candidate is eligible’ and not ‘whether promoted’. A subsequent 2015 Government Resolution prohibited recovery, which was not brought to the notice of the referring Division Bench. The Full Bench heard arguments on the interpretation of the GRs of 2001 and 2010, the meaning of the term ‘अपात्र’, and the effect of the 2015 GR. The judgment, as available, only records the submissions of the petitioner and the procedural history; the court’s analysis and decision are not included in the extracted text.
Issue of Consideration
Under what circumstances, in terms of the Government resolution, either of the year 2001 or 2010, could the benefits under the Assured Progress Scheme be withdrawn on the ground of ineligibility or disqualification?
