R.P. No.208 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.7091 of 2009 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R.P.No.208/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 7091 OF 2009 % Date of Decision: 5th February, 2010 UNION OF INDIA & ORS . .Petitioners/Non-respondent. through: Mr. B.K. Berera, Advocate VERSUS B.S. SAXENA . . . Respondent /Review Petitioner through : In person. CORAM :- THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral) 1. This review petition is filed by the review petitioner (respondent in the Writ Petition and hereinafter referred to as ‘review petitioner’) seeking review of the judgment dated 9th May, 2008. Vide that judgment, this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and as a consequence allowed the Writ Petition of Union of India and dismissed the O.A. filed by the respondent. 2. The submission of the review petitioner, who appears in person, that notwithstanding the fact that he was convicted by the trial court, he was entitled to benefit of one upgradation under the ACP scheme as he had completed twelve years of service in the existing grade much before R.P. No.208 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.7091 of 2009 Page 2 of 2 the conviction and, therefore, as on that day he was entitled to the said upgradation. This contention of the respondent is totally misconceived. No doubt, he was appointed on 1st June, 1979 and he had completed twelve years of service on 1st June, 1999. However, ACP scheme was not in existence at that time and it was introduced only in the year 1999. Therefore, the case of the respondent, in terms of the said scheme, was to be considered in the light of the position of the assessee as on the date of the introduction of the scheme. However, on that date a criminal case, arising out of FIR bearing number 151/1994 dated 13th July, 1994, was pending against him under Section 420/468/471 IPC. Due to the pendency of this case, the respondent could not have been considered for grant of ACP benefit. The said case resulted in his conviction vide judgment dated 22nd September, 2004. It is because of these reasons, in the judgment dated 2nd March, 2009 this Court held that there was no question of granting even first ACP benefit to the respondent/review petitioner. 3. Thus, we find no merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2010. nsk