IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14753 of 2008 Between: Force No.951530085, Asst Sub-Inspector(Ministerial) Bino Mathew R/o.CRPF Campus Ranga Reddy District Hakimpet,Sec-Bad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India Ministry of Home Rep.by its Secretary South Block New Delhi-110001 2 The Director General Police Central Reserve Police Force CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003 3 The Inspector General of Police C.R.P.F Southern Sector Yousufguda,Hyderabad 4 The Dy.Inspector General of Police CRPF Directorate General Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003 5 The Dy Inspector General Police CRPF Range Hqrs Ranga Reddy Range Hakimpet Post Secunderabad-500078 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order No.P.VII.31/07 Adm.I,dt.2-11-2007 issued by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary unjust and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NARINDER PAL SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in C.R.P.F. and at present, he is serving the unit at fifth respondent. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, issued Office Memorandum, dated 09.08.1999, providing for Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) for various categories of employees. Under this scheme, if an employee does not earn promotion for a stipulated period, he would be entitled to up-gradation of pay on completion of that period. So far as the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector is concerned, twelve years is said to be the period prescribed for Career Progression. The petitioner claims to have completed twelve years of service by 23.01.2007. The third respondent issued proceedings, dated 02.11.2007, extending the benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner. However, while the date of completion of twelve years was mentioned as 23.01.2007, the up-gradation of scale of pay was extended with effect from 10.10.2007. Citing the instances of other members of service, who were extended such benefit, the petitioner submits that he ought to have been extended the up-gradation of pay scale with effect from 24.01.2007. The petitioner claims to have made a representation, dated 02.06.2008, and complains that no action has been taken thereon. He contends that several Assistant Sub-Inspectors, who are juniors to him, are drawing higher pay scale on account of the discrepancy in the proceedings, dated 02.11.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On recognizing that the petitioner has completed twelve years of service as Assistant Sub-Inspector, and on finding that he is entitled to be extended the benefit of A.C.P., the third respondent issued proceedings, dated 2.11.2007. The petitioner, who was in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 as on 02.11.2007, was placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. However, the effective date for enhancement is indicated as 10.10.2007, though he is shown to have completed twelve years of service on 23.01.2007. In relation to an employee by name, Sri R.Krishna Murthy, who was extended the benefit through the same proceedings, it is indicated that the upgraded pay scale would come into effect from one day next to the date of completion of twelve years of service. The discrepancy in case of the petitioner appears to be, mostly a typographical error. However, in case there exists any valid reason for denying the benefit of the up-gradation of the pay scale of the petitioner with effect from the date on which he completed twelve years of service, the reasons have to be communicated to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 02.06.2008, made by the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 14.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}