AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr.Justice K.S. Jhaveri
The petitioner herein has challenged the decision of the respondent authorities regarding refixation of pay of the petitioner and withdrawal of the ACP with effect from the year 2001 and to direct the respondent authorities to recalculate the pension and retirement benefits payable to the petitioner as per the original date of ACP.
The facts leading to the filing of the present petition could be set out in nutshell as under:
2.1 The petitioner joined the CISF on 09.08.1989 and he had taken voluntary retirement on 30.09.2010. The petitioner was found fit for financial upgradation under the Advanced Career Progression Scheme with effect from 09.08.2001 but the respondent CISF did not sent him for the Promotion Cadre Course (PCC) in the year 2001 whereas he was sent for the course in the year 2004. The petitioner qualified for the PCC of Constable to HC/HD vide results declared vide letter no. 37020/PCC/6th Batch/ Adm-2/04-7729 dated 20.11.2004.
2.2 The petitioner was found fit for the financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme wherein he had appeared at Sr. No. 70 for being qualified for 2nd MACP with effect from 08.08.2009. The petitioner after clearing the ACP and MACP scheme took voluntary retirement on 30.09.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that after the retirement of the petitioner, the benefit of the ACP scheme which was being given since the year 2001 was withdrawn exparte. Hence being aggrieved by the said action, the present petition is preferred.
Mr. Juneja, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had erred in revoking the grant of ACP from the year 2001 wherein it was because of the administrative reasons on the part of the respondents that the petitioner was not sent for the PCC exams in the year 2001 but instead sent in the year 2004. Mr. Juneja submitted that the petitioner had cleared the PCC exams in the second attempt within two months of failing the Drill in the same year. He submitted that the action of the respondent for refixing the pay of the petitioner and withdrawal of the ACP with effect from 2001 is unreasonable and is required to be quashed and set aside.
Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having perused the papers on record we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent. The respondent''s reply to the legal notice clearly mentions that the petitioner was detailed for the PCC with effect from 05.07.2004 to 21.08.2004 and was declared ''Failed in Drill''. He was declared qualified in PCC after supplementary test vide order dated 20.11.2004. It is mentioned therein that as per the provisions, his ACP should have been withdrawn being found failed in PCC but the same was not done at that time. Thereafter under the existing provisions, the review DPC was conducted and he was granted ACP with effect from 20.11.2004 which is the date of passing PCC vide order dated 29.10.2010.
It is required to be noted that the petitioner was granted ACP with effect from 09.08.2001 on completion of 12 years of service vide order dated 27.03.2002 subject to passing of Promotion Cadre Course. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed due to grant of ACP with effect from 20.11.2004 which is the date of passing of PCC instead of the initial date 09.08.2001 which is the date of completion of 12 years service in CISF). The view taken by the respondent is just and proper and we are in complete agreement with the same.
In the premises aforesaid, petition is devoid of any merits and is dismissed accordingly.