AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUDGEMENT
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in the above numbered writ petitions, hence the same are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment.
The grievance of the petitioner in this present writ petition is against he non grant of the benefit of 3rd ACP. He seeks for enforcing the payment of the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) which has been granted to the Government aided institutions with effect from 01.01.2006, which was otherwise being deprived in relation to the Institutions and Polytechnics which were not in grant in aid.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that he was working as Store Keeper with Respondent no. 4, which is a Government Aided Institution, and after completing his requisite services he retired from his services as Cashier on 31.01.2009. Grievance was denial of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme which is granted to similarly situated persons serving in Government and Government Aided Institutions.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record Government Order dated 14th February, 2018 issued by the State Government, along with Interim Relief Application No. 8181 of 2018, which is listed today for arguments. His argument is to the effect that by virtue of the Government Order dated 14th February, 2018, the benefit of the ACP Scheme has now been enforced to the ministerial employees, who are working in a Government aided Polytechnics. The Government Order dated 14th February, 2018 provides as under:
**fo’k;& v’kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk ds ,y ikfyVsfDud, :M+dh ds f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ks ds fy, lqfuf” pr dSfj;j izksUu;u ¼, lh ih ½dh O;oLFkk fo’k;dA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo’k;d vkids i= l[;k&239@fu izk f” k @LFkk 34@2015&16 fnukad 01.06.2016 ,oa i= la[;k&872@fu izk f” k @LFkk &12@2016&17 fnukad 17.11.2016 ds dze esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs” k gqvk gS fd v” kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk ds ,y ikfyVsfDud] :M+dh ds fu;fer f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 01 09 2008 ¼,d flrEcj] 2008½ ls for foHkkx\ ds “kklukns” k la[;k&872@xxvii(7))u izfr @2011 fnukad 08 03 2011 ds lkFk ifBr “kklukns” k a[;k&589@xxvii(7)40(ix)@2011 fnukad 01 07 2013 o rRi” pkr le;≤ ij fuxZr “kklukns” kksa esa fn;s x;s izfrcU/kksa@” krkZsa ds v/khu fnukad 31 12 2016 rd lqfuf” pr dSfj;j izksUu;u ¼, lh ih ½ dh O;oLFkk ykxw fd;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky lg’kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA 2 ;g vkns” k foRr foHkkx ds v “kk i= la[;k&64@XXVII(7)@2018 fnukad 07 Qjojh] 2018 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls fuxZr fd;s tk jgs gSaA**
In view of the aforesaid Government Order dated 14th February, 2018, by virtue of which the benefit has now been extended to the employees of the Polytechnics, would be enforced and the benefits accruing thereto would be granted to the petitioner in accordance with law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that based on the Government Order dated 14th February, 2018, the respondent/institution has already calculated the grant of ACP benefit, which is payable to the petitioner; but under the note clause, the only embargo which has been referred therein for not enforcing the benefit is the pendency of the present writ petition. The note clause reads as under:
**uksV% dze la[;k 2 ij vafdr Jh jktiky flag o dze la[;k 4 ij vafdr Jh dyh jke }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa ,lhih gsrq okn nk;j fd;k gqvk gSA budk Hkqxrku okn ds fu.kZ; mijkar gh fd;k tk;sxkA**
Taking that fact into consideration and while dismissing the present writ petition having rendered infructuous, it goes without saying that the note clause in itself as mentioned in the tabulation given by the Principal, Kanhaiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee, District Haridwar (respondent no. 4) would automatically stand waived off and the petitioner would be entitled for the benefits under Government Order dated 14th February, 2018 and ACP payable to the petitioner.
The benefit as determined by the Principal, Kanhaiyal Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the supplementary affidavit would be enforced positively within a period of six weeks from the date of the certified copy of this judgment.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition would stand dismissed as having rendered infructuous.