Suresh Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors

Heard the parties

This Intra Court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.02.2014 passed in CWJC No. 22094 of 2012.

The writ petition was filed by the petitioners who came to be appointed as Personal Assistants (P.As) by virtue of a limited competitive examination. Prior thereto they were working as Typist. Now the petitioners having obtained a substantive appointment on a higher post than they were originally entitled to as a typist, have made a claim that the service rendered as typist be taken into consideration for determining their entitlement to benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) scale.

Concept of ACP is well known. It is to remove stagnation where employee are, otherwise enable to get regular promotion. The ACP scheme clearly contemplates that financial progression under the scheme would be granted where the employee is stagnating and not getting an opportunity/grant of promotion to the higher post. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for grant of benefits under the ACP scheme can only be considered if the period of their stagnation, on their appointment as P.As is as per the period contemplated under the ACP scheme. They cannot be heard to say that the period rendered in their earlier service, in a different cadre be added to the services rendered by them as P.As subsequent upon their appointment as P.As. It was only to provide them an avenue of promotion that they were allowed to participated in the limited competitive examination. Having availed of such opportunity, they cannot claim that they would also be granted benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The scheme does not contemplate such double benefit.

The petitioners have been emboldened to stake their claim by citing the example of Raghubansh Singh and Ors. They had been allowed to count the period of service rendered as Stenographer-cum-Typist, for grant of ACP even though they had competed in the limited competitive examination for appointment/promotion as P.As.

The petitioners’ case is entirely different from that of the said Raghubansh Singh and Ors. The petitioners’ claim for parity with Raghubansh Singh and Ors. has been considered in detailed by the order issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary in the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar dated 04.06.2012 bearing no. 5965. The same is Annexure 18 of the instant appeal. Paragraph 5 and 6 shows a detailed analysis of the petitioners’ claim with reference to the said Raghubansh Singh and Ors.

The Principal Secretary has rightly considered the claim of the petitioner to be different then that of the said Raghubansh Singh and Ors. In the case of Raghubansh Singh and Ors., who had risen from the post of Stenographer-cum-Typist to the post of P.A., by virtue of a limited competitive examination, it was found that on the lower post there was no avenue of promotion. The post in the cadre of Stenographer-cum-Typist had therefore, merged in the post of P.As. In the circumstance, the fact that some of the Stenographer-cum-Typist (Raghubansh Singh and Ors.) had become PAs by participating at a limited competitive examination, could not put them at a disadvantage with others from the same cadre who had become P.As by virtue of merger. In those peculiar facts and circumstances the State Government took a conscious decision by memo no. 8824 dated 21.09.2011 to relax the requirement of Rule IV (2) of the ACP scheme so that Raghubansh Singh and Ors., who were in the cadre of stenographer-cum-typist may not be made to suffer any disadvantage in the unique circumstances taken note of hereinabove.

The said Rule IV (i) and (ii) of the ACP Scheme (2003) reads as follows:

4- ik=rk vkSj “krsZa & Ldhe ds v/khu ik=rk fuEufyf[kr “krksZa }kjk fofu;fer gksxh %& ¼1½ Ldhe ds v/khu foRrh; mUu;u dh eatwjh dk ewy ekunaM (criteria) ;g gS fd lacaf/kr deZpkjh] iqujhf{kr osrueku lfgr ,d gh osrueku esa 12/24 o’kksZa ls dke djrk vk jgk gks A ,slh fLFkfr esa mPprj osruekuksa dh eatwjh nh tk,xh Hkys gh mlus fofHkUu inksa ij] ,d gh osrueku esa dk;Z fd;k gks % ijUrq ;fn ewy fu;qfDr ds in ls fHkUu in ij fu;qfDr mPprj osrueku esa dh xbZ gks rks mls lh/kh fu;qfDr ekuk tk,xk vkSj ,0 lh0 ih0 ;kstuk ds v/khu foRrh; mUu;u ds ykHk dh eatwjh ds iz;kstukFkZ iowZ dh lsok dh x.kuk ugha dh tk,xhA ¼2½ lhfer izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fd;s x, p;u ds vk/kkj ij mPprj in ij dh xbZ fu;qfDr Ldhe ds v/khu foRrh; mUu;u dh eatwjh ds iz;kstukFkZ lh/kh fu;qfDr ekuh tk,xh vkSj fuEurj osrueku esa dh xbZ lsok dh x.kuk ugha dh tk,xh] vxj lqlaxr HkrhZ fu;ekoyh esa lh/kh fu;qfDr dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gks % ijUrq ;fn lqlaxr HkrhZ fu;ekoyh esa fuEurj osrueku ds dfeZ;ksa ds fy, izksUufr dk dksVk fu;r fd;k x;k gks] rks ,slh fu;qfDr dh Ldhe ds v/khu foRrh; mUu;u ds ykHk dh eatwjh ds iz;kstukFkZ izksUufr ekuk tk,xk vkSj foRrh; mUu;u ds ykHk dh eatwjh ds fy, iwoZ lsok dh x.kuk dh tk,xh A

The petitioners were typist in a different cadre i.e., the cadre of “typist” and not “stenographer-cum-typist”. Raghubansh Singh and Ors. were in the cadre of stenographer-cum-typist. Perusal of the Rules would show that the same does not provide for counting of service of the petitioners as typist for granting them benefits of ACP. It is clear that once fresh appointment has been made on the higher post, as in the case of the petitioners by way of a limited competitive examination, the period of service prior thereto on the lower post is not to be counted or added while determining the requisite period for grant of benefit of financial assured career progression. No up-gradation/merger of the post of typist was ever done as P.As, as had been done in the case of stenographer-cum-typist, i.e., Raghubansh Singh & Ors.

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain facts regarding grant of benefits under ACP to the appellants. The facts placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit have been brought on record for the first time, that also at the stage of final hearing in the appeal. Even otherwise, the same are not relevant for the purposes of the issue in the instant case.

Counsel for the respondent State with reference to Para 5 of the order dated 04.06.2012 issued by the Finance Department has rightly pointed out that in the cadre of typist where the petitioner was earlier working the basic post was that of typist. Within the cadre there was avenue for promotion as head typist and thereafter, as typist superintendent. Petitioners therefore, comprised a distinct cadre than that of Raghubansh Singh and Ors., with whom he is claiming parity and for whom there was no avenue of promotion. Accordingly, in the case of Raghubansh Singh and Ors. their post as Stenographer-cum-Typist merged/was upgraded as Personal Assistant. There is no parity which the petitioners’ claim with that of Raghubansh Singh and Ors. Otherwise also in terms of the provisions of the ACP Scheme (2003) taken note of hereinabove petitioners who have become PAs by competing in the limited competitive examination would be treated as being directly appointed as PAs. They cannot be allowed to count their services on the lower scale for assessing the requisite period/eligibility for grant of ACP. The reasoning/consideration of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department with reference to the petitioners’ claim under order dated 04.06.2012 therefore, does not require any interference.

The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.