IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4628 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 24.03.2009 Balaur Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has retired as Inspector from the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on 30.4.2004. After his retirement, he claimed that he should have been granted one additional increment in the form of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and accordingly for re-fixation of his pay and retiral/pensionary benefits. Vide an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2954 of 2007, the respondent Corporation was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in that regard. Accordingly, vide order dated 23.5.2007 (Annexure P-3), the respondent Corporation has rejected the representation of the petitioner, while holding that he was not entitled to the grant of an additional increment under the ACP Scheme after completion of 8 years service as Sub Inspector and re- CWP No. 4628 of 2009 -2- fixation of his retiral benefits. In the order, it has been observed that as per the Punjab Government instructions dated 25.9.1998, which have been accepted by the respondent Corporation and made applicable to its employees, an employee on completion of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service in a post is entitled for the benefit of additional increment, if 50% ACRs of such an employee are good and others are average and two from the last three ACRs are good. After considering the ACRs of the petitioner, the following findings have been recorded : “As per 8 years ACR record given above only two ACRs of Sh. Balaur Singh Sub Inspector are good. His remaining six ACRs are average. Therefore, in the light of instructions of Punjab Government dated 25.9.1998 he is not entitled to the grant of ACP on the completion of 8 years service as Sub Inspector. According to Govt. Instructions the case of an employee for the grant of ACP is to be considered on year to year basis. After 1999-2000 he earned average ACR for the year 2000-01, Good for the year 2001-02 and Average B for the year 2002-03, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of additional increment under the ACP Scheme up to 2003 when he was promoted to the post of Inspector according to PRTC conditions of Appointment & Service Regulations – 1981, governing the service conditions of the Class IV & III employees.” In view of the aforesaid ACRs, the relief claimed has been declined. Counsel for the petitioner does not controvert the aforesaid factual position. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent CWP No. 4628 of 2009 -3- Corporation has rightly declined the relief to the petitioner. Dismissed. March 24, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE