C.W.P.No.16673 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16673 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 15.12.2011 Ranbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has questioned Annexure P-6 vide which the benefit of ACP scheme granted to him is being withdrawn on the ground that he has surrendered his promotion willingly. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Clerk and had put in 26 years of service when he was promoted as Assistant in the month of October, 2006. Compelled by his family circumstances, he surrendered his promotion and made a request that he be permitted to continue as Clerk on a particular place of posting which prayer was acceded to by the respondents. The petitioner thus stood reverted to the post of Clerk. The petitioner had been granted the benefit of ACP scheme after having completed 10 years and 20 years regular satisfactory service in accordance with the scheme and by virtue of Annexure P-6 these benefits have been sought to be withdrawn from the petitioner on the ground that he has forgone his promotion. On due consideration of the matter I am of the considered C.W.P.No.16673 of 2010(O&M) 2 opinion that this question is no longer res integra as this Court in Vijay Singh Vs.State of Haryana and others reported as 2011 (2) SCT 301 has held that the ACP benefits granted to a person in accordance with the scheme cannot be withdrawn in the event of an incumbent willingly forgoing his promotion. To the same effect are the observations of DB in case titled as Nirmal Kanta and another Vs. State of Haryana and others rendered in CWP no. 15839 of 2007 decided on 11.8.2008 in which the Hon'ble Division Bench while relying upon the earlier Division Bench which observed as follows and had accepted plea of the petitioner therein. “The basic contention raised before us is that the respondent had undergone their promotions as lecturers w.e.f 1.1.1996 and consequently they would be debarred from claiming the proficiency step up. The respondents claim to have taken this action in furtherance to paragraph No. 9 of the Punjab Government instructions dated 1.9.1989. It is difficult for this Court to hold that the petitioners would be debarred from claiming the proficiency step up in the circumstances of the case. The petitioners were offered the promotion in September, 1998 and thereafter, by that time the petitioners had completed more than eight years of service as they were appointed in Adhoc basis in the year 1975 and regularly appointed to the same posts in the year 1977 onwards. Thus, in any circumstances and whatever be the interpretation given to the instructions of the Government, the petitioners cannot be denied the eight years proficiency step up increment.” C.W.P.No.16673 of 2010(O&M) 3 On the parity of reasoning given in the aforesaid two judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits of ACP scheme which were granted to him regardless of the fact that he has surrendered his promotion. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 28.8.2008 (Annexure P- 6) is quashed and the instant petition is allowed. December 15, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge