Employee Who Repeatedly Declines Promotion Not Entitled To ACP/Time-Bound Financial Upgradation: Chhattisgarh High Court

A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput held that an employee who voluntarily refuses a regular promotion is not entitled to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, as the scheme is meant to alleviate stagnation caused by lack of promotional opportunities. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 52] Background Facts The petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in October 1992. She was later promoted to the next higher post. However, due to compelling personal circumstances, she could not join the promotional post. The employee was offered promotion in the years 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2010, but she chose not to accept the promotional avenues on each occasion. She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming grant of senior scale/time-bound pay scale on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service. Her claim was rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. It was argued by the employee that under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, an employee who completes 12 years and 24 years of satisfactory service is entitled to financial upgradation. The petitioner has rendered more than 24 years of unblemished service. Further no punishment or adverse remark has ever been recorded against her. It was submitted that denial of the benefit of senior scale/time-bound pay scale solely on the ground that she did not join the promotional post is arbitrary and illegal. It was further contended that other similarly situated employees, despite having declined promotions, were granted the benefit of senior scale. On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the petitioner was afforded repeated opportunities of promotion during the years 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2010, but she declined to avail the same on each occasion. It was submitted that as per the clarification issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, where a teacher is offered financial upgradation through promotion before completion of 12 years of service and refuses such promotion, then he/she shall not be entitled to grant of senior scale on completion of 12 years. It was further contended that the plea of parity raised by the petitioner is misconceived as teachers posted in the Hyderabad Region were granted the benefit prior to issuance of the clarification. After the clarification, even the benefit extended to a teacher at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Surajpur, was withdrawn. Findings and Observations of the Court It was noted by the Division Bench that the object of the ACP/time-bound advancement scheme is to alleviate stagnation, where no promotional avenue is made available to an employee. The scheme cannot be interpreted so as to permit an employee to voluntarily forego available promotional opportunities and then claim financial advancement. It was further observed that the clarification issued by the respondent-Navoday Vidyalay Samiti provided that where an employee has been afforded an opportunity of financial advancement through promotion before completion of the prescribed period and such promotion is declined, the employee shall not be entitled to the benefit of senior scale on completion of the qualifying service. It was further observed that the employee was offered promotion on several occasions but she declined to accept the same. The case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Manju Arora & Anr. was relied upon wherein it was held that employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits. The employees cannot be allowed to simultaneously approbate and reprobate. It was held by the Division Bench that the Administrative Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench. Case Name : Samarpita Paul Vs. Union of India & Ors. Case No. : WPS No. 6287 of 2025 Counsel for the Appellant : Sudeep Verma, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor GeneralClick Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 52

Employee Who Repeatedly Declines Promotion Not Entitled To ACP/Time-Bound Financial Upgradation: Chhattisgarh High Court

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

Employee Who Repeatedly Declines Promotion Not Entitled To ACP/Time-Bound Financial Upgradation: Chhattisgarh High Court

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers