Retrospective application of recruitment rules cannot deny vested ACP benefits.

The applicants, Ajay Arela (aged 56) and Vinay Kulshrestha (aged 55), were Senior Library and Information Assistants at the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal.

They became eligible for their first Assured Career Progression (ACP) on 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006, respectively, upon completing 12 years of service.

At the time, the hierarchy of posts and pay scales at Respondent No. 3 (IIFM) was: Librarian (Rs. 10000-15200/-), Assistant Librarian (Rs. 8000-13500/-), and Senior Library & Information Assistant (Rs. 5500-9000/-).

The applicants contended they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-.

However, they were granted the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- as their first ACP via an order dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure A/1).

Their immediate seniors, Shri A.K. Sinha and Shri Dinesh Karheria, initially received the same pay scale but, following a representation by Shri A.K. Sinha and directions from Respondent No. 1 (Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change), were granted the Rs. 8000-13500/- pay scale (pre-revised) with effect from their due dates (Shri A.K. Sinha and Shri Dinesh Karheria vide order dated 28.04.2009 (Annexure A/5)).

This decision by Respondent No. 1 was based on the non-applicability of point No. 56 of DoPT, O.M. dated 18/07/2001, as clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9224/2006.

The applicants submitted representations in 2009 (Annexure A/6) seeking similar benefits, which were rejected by Respondent No. 3 on 22.07.2013 (Annexure A/8).

The rejection cited Sl. 56 of the DoPT clarification and the IIFM Recruitment Rules.

Subsequent fresh representations in 2014 (Annexure A/9) led to Respondent No. 1 advising Respondent No. 3 to re-submit the proposal (Annexure A/10).

Respondent No. 3 then recommended granting the Rs. 8000-13500/- pay scale to the applicants on 06.03.2019 (Annexure A/11), noting the non-applicability of condition no. 56 of DoPT O.M. and emphasizing that their case should be governed by Recruitment Rules applicable on the date of eligibility.

Respondent No. 1 also advised Respondent No. 3 to take necessary steps on 11.03.2020 (Annexure A/12).

Despite these recommendations, the applicants did not receive the higher pay scale.

Finally, Applicant No. 1 received a letter dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure A/14) from Respondent No. 3 stating that the granted pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- was correct as per legal opinion and rules applicable on the date of completion of 12 years of regular service.

The respondents argued that the new Recruitment Rules of 2006, made applicable retrospectively from 31.03.2005, governed the applicants' ACP, and these rules provided the next higher grade as Rs. 6500-10500/-.

They also claimed the applicants' representations were beyond the limitation period.

1. Whether the order dated 16.06.2022 denying the applicants the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- (Pre-revised) for their first ACP was valid.

2. Whether the new Recruitment Rules of 2006, applied retrospectively from 31.03.2005, could prejudice the vested rights of the applicants under the ACP scheme.

3. Whether the applicants were similarly situated to A.K. Sinha and others who received the higher pay scale.

The court primarily relied on the principles governing the application of rules with retrospective effect, citing the Ministry of Home Affairs instructions dated 21.05.1980, which state that retrospective effect should not be given to subsidiary legislation unless expressly or implicitly permitted by the Act, and if given, an explanatory memorandum must state that no one's interest would be prejudicially affected.

It also applied the legal precedent from Union of India v. Prakash Chand & Ors. (W.P. (C) NO. 9224 of 2006) dated 07.08.2006, emphasizing that clarified instructions under the ACP Scheme should not take away a government servant's vested right in their existing hierarchy for financial upgradation.

Further, the court drew upon the Supreme Court judgment in Avindranath Pai & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (1995 AIR 1978), which held that even statutory rules with retrospective effect should not result in discrimination or violation of constitutional rights affecting vested rights, and that rule-making authority should not normally act retrospectively.

The court also highlighted the distinction between promotions governed by Cadre Recruitment Rules and advancements under the ACP scheme governed by separate instructions.

The court found that Respondent No. 3 had itself recommended the applicants for the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-, acknowledging that the non-applicability of condition No. 56 of DoPT O.M. meant the law applicable on the date of eligibility for ACP should govern the case, aligning with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

The core of the respondents' argument—that the new Recruitment Rules of 2006, applied retrospectively from 31.03.2005, dictated a lower upgradation to Rs. 6500-10500/-—was rejected.

The court noted that the respondents failed to explain the basis for this retrospective application and did not follow the Ministry of Home Affairs instructions requiring an explanatory memorandum confirming no prejudicial effect.

The court emphasized that the ACP scheme is governed by separate instructions, not recruitment rules, and ruled that applying the 2006 Recruitment Rules to deny benefits retrospectively was incorrect, particularly when those rules were silent on the ACP scheme.

Crucially, the court found the applicants similarly placed to A.K. Sinha and others, who received the higher pay scale based on the Prakash Chand judgment, which held that administrative instructions and clarifications should not divest vested rights under the ACP scheme.

The court reiterated the principle from Avindranath Pai that retrospective rules should not discriminate or violate constitutional/vested rights.

It directed the respondents to grant the applicants the benefit of the ACP scheme and consider their case for the advanced pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- (Pre-revised) with effect from 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006, respectively.

The pay of the applicants is to be fixed accordingly, but without any arrears.

This exercise must be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.