High Court · 2025

2. Heard Mr. Ayush Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties.

3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.07.2024 whereby petitioner's representation for grant of benefits of the Assured Career Progressions Scheme has been rejected. Also under challenge is the portion of order dated 06.11.2012 whereby services rendered by petitioner in the erstwhile Corporation has been excluded for counting of service benefits.

4. A further prayer seeking a direction to opposite parties for grant of benefits of the Assured Career Progressions Scheme and for retiral benefits counting his services w.e.f 22.11.1989 has also been sought.

5. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was appointed as a Trained Teacher on 17.11.1989 in the Tarai Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. which was subsequently merged into the Tribal Development Directorate on 06.06.1996. It is submitted that in the aforesaid government order dated 06.06.1996, 62 employees of the Integrated Tribal Development Project which was assimilated into the Tribal Development Directorate were merged in the government department wherein the petitioner was also integrated into the department as a primary teacher in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. It is submitted that subsequently vide order dated 06.11.2012, it was directed that the employees of the said Corporation would be deemed to be government servants w.e.f. the date of their merger vide order dated 06.06.1996 and their services would be counted for post retiral benefits but the services rendered in the Corporation would not be counted for service benefits. It is submitted that subsequently petitioner was absorbed into the Basic Education Department and thereafter superannuated on 31.03.2021 but has filed this petition in view of the fact that a similarly situated petitioner namely Mr. Ram Singh Rathore was granted such benefits of ACP while rejecting petitioner's claim.

6. It is submitted that the opposite parties have completely lost sight of the fact that petitioner upon his absorption as a government servant was required to be treated as such and granted benefits of ACP w.e.f. 1996. It is also submitted that the impugned order has rejected petitioner's representation placing reliance on the government order dated 13.03.2015 to indicate that since petitioner did not have the essential qualification of Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC) he would thus not be entitled for the grant of ACP benefits.

7. It is submitted that such a reasoning is completely erroneous since the provisions pertaining to grant of ACP prescribe only the aspect of substantive continued satisfactory service.

8. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has reiterated the ground indicated in the rejection order as well as in the counter affidavit to submit that once the government order dated 06.11.2012 clearly stipulates that services rendered by petitioner in the Corporation would not be counted towards service benefits, the same has been rightly rejected. She has also placed reliance on the government order dated 13.03.2015 to submit that for the purposes of grant of service benefits, it was necessary for petitioner to have obtained the essential qualification required for absorption as a Trained Teacher in the Basic Education Department which he lacked. It has also been submitted that subsequently the state government has constituted a committee in June, 2024 for re- evaluating the service benefits granted to all such personnel who had been absorbed government service from the Corporation concerned.

9. It is submitted that final orders are yet to be passed.

10. It is also submitted that the case of Mr. Ram Singh Rathore has also been put up for examination before a committee concerned, particularly withdrawing the benefits which have already been granted to him and submits that even otherwise there cannot be negative equality.

11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner was earlier an employee of the Corporation and has been absorbed in the Directorate in pursuance of government order dated 06.06.1996. The said order indicates that absorption of all such personnel would be in terms of service conditions which would not be below par from the benefits to which they were entitled as employees of the Corporation.

12. It is also evident that subsequently vide order dated 06.11.2012, it has been directed that all such personnel who were absorbed in government service in pursuance of order dated 06.06.1996 would be treated to be government servants w.e.f. the date of their absorption. The order also states that services rendered by such personnel in service of the Corporation however would not be counted towards service benefits.

13. The aforesaid two orders clearly indicate the aspect that petitioner upon absorption in government service was required to be treated as a government servant w.e.f. date of absorption i.e. 06.06.1996. The only stipulation indicated in the government order dated 06.11.2011 is that services rendered in the Corporation would not be counted towards service benefits after absorption.

14. In such circumstances, evidently petitioner was entitled for all such service benefits which are admissible to government servants from the date of his absorption i.e. 06.06.1996 in terms of the government order dated 06.11.2012.

15. It is also evident that vide government order dated 24.02.2009 and 05.11.2013, the provisions of ACP have been made applicable upon teachers of the Basic Education Department and government servants respectively.

16. Upon a conjoint examination of the aforesaid two orders, it is also evident that the only condition required for grant of ACP is substantive continued satisfactory service. The orders do not prescribe a condition that for grant of ACP, the employees are required to have the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment on the said post.

17. In the considered opinion of this Court, even otherwise aforesaid aspect of requiring minimum eligibility criteria would be relevant only for the purposes of appointment or absorption and once petitioner had already been absorbed in government service and treated to be government servant w.e.f.1996, he would be entitled to the benefits of ACP particularly since he has independently completed the conditions required for grant of ACP i.e. substantive continuance of satisfactory service.

18. In view thereof, this Court finds that the rejection of petitioner’s representation on the aspect that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of trained teacher, to be erroneous.

19. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to sanction benefit of Assured Career Progressions to petitioner w.e.f. 06.06.1996.

20. In view of discussions made herein above, this Court does not find any occasion to quash the conditions indicated in the government order dated 06.11.2012.

21. The benefits shall be made available to petitioner expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the authority concerned.

23. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed.

24. Parties to bear their own cost. SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 22.8.2025/Shahnaz

2. Heard Mr. Ayush Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties.

3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.07.2024 whereby petitioner's representation for grant of benefits of the Assured Career Progressions Scheme has been rejected. Also under challenge is the portion of order dated 06.11.2012 whereby services rendered by petitioner in the erstwhile Corporation has been excluded for counting of service benefits.

4. A further prayer seeking a direction to opposite parties for grant of benefits of the Assured Career Progressions Scheme and for retiral benefits counting his services w.e.f 22.11.1989 has also been sought.

5. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was appointed as a Trained Teacher on 17.11.1989 in the Tarai Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. which was subsequently merged into the Tribal Development Directorate on 06.06.1996. It is submitted that in the aforesaid government order dated 06.06.1996, 62 employees of the Integrated Tribal Development Project which was assimilated into the Tribal Development Directorate were merged in the government department wherein the petitioner was also integrated into the department as a primary teacher in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. It is submitted that subsequently vide order dated 06.11.2012, it was directed that the employees of the said Corporation would be deemed to be government servants w.e.f. the date of their merger vide order dated 06.06.1996 and their services would be counted for post retiral benefits but the services rendered in the Corporation would not be counted for service benefits. It is submitted that subsequently petitioner was absorbed into the Basic Education Department and thereafter superannuated on 31.03.2021 but has filed this petition in view of the fact that a similarly situated petitioner namely Mr. Ram Singh Rathore was granted such benefits of ACP while rejecting petitioner's claim.

6. It is submitted that the opposite parties have completely lost sight of the fact that petitioner upon his absorption as a government servant was required to be treated as such and granted benefits of ACP w.e.f. 1996. It is also submitted that the impugned order has rejected petitioner's representation placing reliance on the government order dated 13.03.2015 to indicate that since petitioner did not have the essential qualification of Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC) he would thus not be entitled for the grant of ACP benefits.

7. It is submitted that such a reasoning is completely erroneous since the provisions pertaining to grant of ACP prescribe only the aspect of substantive continued satisfactory service.

8. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has reiterated the ground indicated in the rejection order as well as in the counter affidavit to submit that once the government order dated 06.11.2012 clearly stipulates that services rendered by petitioner in the Corporation would not be counted towards service benefits, the same has been rightly rejected. She has also placed reliance on the government order dated 13.03.2015 to submit that for the purposes of grant of service benefits, it was necessary for petitioner to have obtained the essential qualification required for absorption as a Trained Teacher in the Basic Education Department which he lacked. It has also been submitted that subsequently the state government has constituted a committee in June, 2024 for re- evaluating the service benefits granted to all such personnel who had been absorbed government service from the Corporation concerned.

9. It is submitted that final orders are yet to be passed.

10. It is also submitted that the case of Mr. Ram Singh Rathore has also been put up for examination before a committee concerned, particularly withdrawing the benefits which have already been granted to him and submits that even otherwise there cannot be negative equality.

11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner was earlier an employee of the Corporation and has been absorbed in the Directorate in pursuance of government order dated 06.06.1996. The said order indicates that absorption of all such personnel would be in terms of service conditions which would not be below par from the benefits to which they were entitled as employees of the Corporation.

12. It is also evident that subsequently vide order dated 06.11.2012, it has been directed that all such personnel who were absorbed in government service in pursuance of order dated 06.06.1996 would be treated to be government servants w.e.f. the date of their absorption. The order also states that services rendered by such personnel in service of the Corporation however would not be counted towards service benefits.

13. The aforesaid two orders clearly indicate the aspect that petitioner upon absorption in government service was required to be treated as a government servant w.e.f. date of absorption i.e. 06.06.1996. The only stipulation indicated in the government order dated 06.11.2011 is that services rendered in the Corporation would not be counted towards service benefits after absorption.

14. In such circumstances, evidently petitioner was entitled for all such service benefits which are admissible to government servants from the date of his absorption i.e. 06.06.1996 in terms of the government order dated 06.11.2012.

15. It is also evident that vide government order dated 24.02.2009 and 05.11.2013, the provisions of ACP have been made applicable upon teachers of the Basic Education Department and government servants respectively.

16. Upon a conjoint examination of the aforesaid two orders, it is also evident that the only condition required for grant of ACP is substantive continued satisfactory service. The orders do not prescribe a condition that for grant of ACP, the employees are required to have the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment on the said post.

17. In the considered opinion of this Court, even otherwise aforesaid aspect of requiring minimum eligibility criteria would be relevant only for the purposes of appointment or absorption and once petitioner had already been absorbed in government service and treated to be government servant w.e.f.1996, he would be entitled to the benefits of ACP particularly since he has independently completed the conditions required for grant of ACP i.e. substantive continuance of satisfactory service.

18. In view thereof, this Court finds that the rejection of petitioner’s representation on the aspect that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of trained teacher, to be erroneous.

19. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to sanction benefit of Assured Career Progressions to petitioner w.e.f. 06.06.1996.

20. In view of discussions made herein above, this Court does not find any occasion to quash the conditions indicated in the government order dated 06.11.2012.

21. The benefits shall be made available to petitioner expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the authority concerned.

23. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed.

24. Parties to bear their own cost. SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 22.8.2025/Shahnaz