Pay Protection Based On Previous Service Does Not Grant Vested Right To Count Such Service For Career Progression Benefits: Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the grant of pay protection on the basis of previous service does not confer a vested right to have such service counted for the purpose of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits. The Court observed that pay protection and financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme operate in distinct fields and are governed by different executive...
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the grant of pay protection on the basis of previous service does not confer a vested right to have such service counted for the purpose of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits. The Court observed that pay protection and financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme operate in distinct fields and are governed by different executive instructions.
Justice Pankaj Purohit was hearing a writ petition filed by an employee challenging the Government Order dated 06.11.2013 and consequential orders withdrawing the benefit of the third Assured Career Progression (ACP). The petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon in Nagar Palika Parishad and was regularised later. Pursuant to a fresh appointment, he joined the State Election Commission. He contended that while computing his qualifying service for the third ACP, the respondents had wrongly excluded the period of service rendered in the Nagar Palika Parishad, despite recognising that service for the purpose of pay protection at the time of his appointment in the State Election Commission. Although the third ACP had initially been granted, it was subsequently withdrawn.
The respondents contended that the petitioner had joined the State Election Commission through a fresh appointment and that the Government Orders governing the ACP Scheme permitted only regular service rendered under the State Government to be counted, excluding service rendered in local bodies.
The Court held that the petitioner's claim was unsupported by any statutory provision or executive instruction entitling him to count his service in the Nagar Palika Parishad for the purpose of the ACP Scheme after his appointment in the State Election Commission. It observed that the Government Orders dated 08.03.2011, 01.07.2013 and 06.11.2013 governed the eligibility criteria for financial upgradation and that the respondents had acted in accordance with those Government Orders while withdrawing the benefit.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on pay protection, the Court observed that pay protection and financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme operate in distinct fields and are governed by different provisions. Merely because the petitioner's previous service had been recognised for pay fixation did not confer any right to claim ACP by counting that service.
“Pay protection and financial upgradation under the A.C.P. Scheme operate in distinct fields and are governed by different provisions. Merely because petitioner's past service was recognized for pay fixation cannot, by itself, confer a right to claim the benefit of A.C.P. by considering the said service,” the Court observed,
The Court further held that the initial grant of the third ACP, being contrary to the applicable Government Orders, did not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner. It also found no merit in the challenge to the Government Order.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Bhopal Chandra Pancholi v. State Election Commission & Ors. [Writ Petition Service Single No. 1347 of 2015]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (UK) 73