PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks directions in this proceeding under Article 226 to quash an order dated 19.06.2012 by the third respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the BSF'). The fact of the impugned order is to deny him the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) admissible in terms of the Central Government Scheme.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner joined the BSF in the year 1980. He left the organization on 30.11.1996. At that stage, the BSF had sanctioned pension to the petitioner. By general order dated 15.01.1998, the BSF clarified that to avail of pension, an individual had to serve for a minimum qualifying period of 20 years. Accordingly, the BSF withdrew the pension order and other attending benefits which the petitioner was enjoying. Similar orders were made in respect of the other personnel. This led to litigation which culminated in the judgment of Supreme Court on 04.01.2006. The Supreme Court directed that all such pensioners who have sought and were permitted to retire and the beneficiaries of pension ought to be granted the option to rejoin, but on condition of refund of the pension they had received. The petitioner received intimation asking him to re-join his services. The respondent allowed him to do so on 30.06.2006. He was reinstated from 19.09.2006 by an order dated 05.03.2007. The petitioner and others were aggrieved yet again when the BSF by an order dated 17.10.2008 stated that those who were re-inducted would retain previous seniority, but in order to get promoted to the next rank, would have to undergo mandatory courses. This led to some dissatisfaction. Various individuals approached this Court which by judgment dated 02.02.2011 directed that notional increments were admissible to all such personnel, though the arrears of salary were not to be granted. This was in order to rectify the pay anomaly which had arisen on account of the respondent's position whereby juniors were drawing a higher pay than the seniors.

(3.) The petitioner underwent the mandatory promotional course in September, 2011 and was not granted promotion to the rank of SubInspector as he was placed in Low Medical Category. Consequently, he was not promoted. The petitioner, therefore, became entitled to third MACP benefit on 23.05.2012. He represented to the respondents who rejected his request by the impugned order.