CWP No.10293-CAT of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.10293-CAT of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: May 11, 2009 K.S. GULERIA ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. V.K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. SANJAY GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioners is aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which his Original Application seeking a direction that the respondents be directed to grant him 2nd ACP Scale w.e.f 17.9.2002 with all consequential benefits was rejected. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant under the All India Handicraft Board, Ministry of Textiles, Office of Development Commissioner (Handcrafts) vide orders dated 30.8.1978. As per appointment letter the post was temporary under Plan Scheme and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or without any reason being assigned. At the time when the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant there were no statutory rules governing the service. CWP No.10293-CAT of 2007 -2- The rules, for the first time, were prepared in the year 1982. After framing of the rules, the seniority list was circulated and the name of the petitioner was included at S.No.30 and in column No.5 of the seniority list date of regularization of the petitioner was mentioned as 16.1.1982. On 9.8.1999, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Pension (Department of Personnel & Training) circulated the scheme known as Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short ACP). As per the Scheme of the Central Government, employees were granted two financial upgradations after 12 and 24 years of service of regular service. The case of the petitioner is that as he had completed 24 years of service on 17.9.2002, if the period is counted from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. from 1978, therefore, he should have been granted the ACP Scheme from 17.9.2002 and not from the date subsequent thereto. The petitioner submitted representations before the departmental authorities which were rejected. Ultimately the petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal which has also been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as the petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit vide letter dated 30.8.1978, therefore, the period for the grant of ACP scale should be reckoned from the date of his appointment and not from the date of his regularization which was on 16.1.1982. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned action of the respondents in not granting him the 2nd ACP Scale w.e.f. 2002 is against the policy of the ACP Scheme. It is contended that it has been mentioned in the scheme that residency period is to be granted from the date of recruitment of the Government employee on the post and as the petitioner had joined the service on 18.9.1978, therefore, the period has CWP No.10293-CAT of 2007 -3- to be counted from the date the petitioner has completed 24 years which was in the year 2002. A perusal of the appointment letter of the petitioner shows that he was appointed on 30.8.1978 against a temporary post under a Plan Scheme and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or without any reason being assigned. The very tenor of the appointment letter of the petitioner clearly shows that his appointment was not on regular basis but was temporary in nature. The petitioner was given regular appointment on 16.1.1982 and his name was included at S.No.30 in the seniority list on the said date as Technical Assistant. The petitioner never challenged the date of his regularization right from 1982 till 2002, when he was not granted the ACP Scale as he had not completed 24 years of regular service. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that 2nd ACP was due to the petitioner on completion of 24 years of regular service on the post of Technical Assistant (Metal Craft) on 16.1.2006, as he was a regular holder of the post on Technical Assistant w.e.f. 16.1.1982. Accordingly, 2nd ACP to the petitioner has been given to him on 16.1.2006, as per rules on completion of 24 years of service and he was not entitled to get the same w.e.f. 2002, as temporary service rendered by him cannot be counted for the purposes of grant of 2nd ACP. Resultantly, we find no merit in the writ petition the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 11, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE