Facts
The applicant was initially appointed as a Trade Apprentice/MTS Fitter on 13.08.1970.
Source reference: p. 6He received three subsequent promotions: first to Chargeman 'B'/Mistry Grade-I (effective 01.11.1978), second to Chargeman 'A'/Junior Engineer-I (effective 28.06.1983), and third to Section Engineer (effective 22.02.1989).
Source reference: p. 4, 6Following a direct order from the Tribunal in O.A. No. 439/2007, the respondents re-fixed the applicant's seniority and pay in 2012.
Source reference: p. 2, 4The applicant retired voluntarily on 28.02.2002.
Source reference: p. 6The applicant filed the present O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of the 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme effective from 22.02.2001, arguing that he had not received a promotion for 12 years prior to that date.
Source reference: p.1, 5Issues
1. Whether an employee who has already received three regular promotions during his service career is entitled to further financial up-gradations under the ACP Scheme.
Source reference: p. 4 / para 52. Whether the applicant's 12-year stagnation in the final post (1989–2001) qualifies him for the 1st ACP benefit despite prior promotions.
Source reference: p. 5 / para 9Law Applied
The court primarily applied the conditions of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme as stipulated in RBE No. 233/98 (Para 5.1).
Source reference: p. 3, 7The rule dictates that two financial up-gradations under the ACP Scheme are available in an entire railway career only if no regular promotions are availed during the prescribed periods of 12 and 24 years of regular service.
Source reference: p. 4Any regular promotion, including in-situ or fast-track promotions through LDCE, is counted against the entitlement for ACP up-gradations.
Source reference: p. 4, 7Reasoning
The Tribunal analyzed the applicant’s service record against the eligibility criteria of RBE No. 233/98. It noted that the ACP scheme was designed to provide financial relief to employees facing stagnation due to a lack of promotional avenues, limited to a maximum of two up-gradations if no regular promotions were granted at the 12 and 24-year marks.
Source reference: p. 4The court found that the applicant had already climbed three rungs in the hierarchy: from MTS Fitter to Chargeman 'B', then to Chargeman 'A', and finally to Section Engineer. Because the applicant had already successfully availed three regular promotions (exceeding the scheme’s limit of two), the court reasoned that the ACP scheme's prohibitory clause in Para 5.1 applied.
Source reference: p. 6, 7The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that a 12-year gap since his last promotion (1989 to 2001) entitled him to ACP, clarifying that the scheme counts total promotions from the date of entry as a direct recruit rather than single intervals of stagnation if the quota of up-gradations/promotions is already exhausted.
Source reference: p. 4, 7Holding
The Tribunal held that since the applicant had already received three regular promotions during his service career, he was ineligible for any financial up-gradations under the ACP Scheme as per the extant rules.
The court found no merit in the claim for the 1st ACP benefit and dismissed the Original Application.
Source reference: p. 7No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
SITOWAR SARAN JAIPURIYARvsRAILWAY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in