UDAL SINGH SANGER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dtd. 12/12/2019 passed by the learned Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Claim Petition No. 49/DB/2019 (Udal Singh Sangar v. State of Uttarakhand and another), as well as the consequential order dtd. 6/2/2019, whereby the benefit of third Assured Career Progression (ACP) earlier granted to the petitioner was cancelled. A further prayer has been made to allow the claim petition in toto.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer on 26/10/1972 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in June, 2000; that, The petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31/1/2008 from the office of Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, P.W.D., Roorkee; that, at the time of his retirement, the petitioner was drawing Grade Pay of Rs.6600.00; that, the State Government issued Government Order dtd. 8/3/2011, introducing the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, with retrospective effect from 1/1/2006 / 1/9/2008, depending upon the grade pay held by an employee; that, under para 2(i) of the said Government Order, provision was made for grant of three financial up-gradations on completion of 10, 18 and 26 years of continuous satisfactory service from the date of direct recruitment; that, pursuant to the said Government Order, a Screening Committee was constituted and, on its recommendation, vide office order dtd. 20/10/2011, the petitioner was granted the benefit of third ACP w.e.f. 1/9/2008. Subsequently, on representation made by the petitioner claiming entitlement to third ACP from 1/1/2006, the department re-examined the matter and vide order dtd. 6/2/2019, cancelled the ACP benefit altogether, on the ground that the petitioner had already retired on 31/1/2008, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of applicability of the ACP Scheme. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Public Services Tribunal, which, after exchange of pleadings, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dtd. 12/12/2019. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that once the benefit of ACP had been granted and pension fixed accordingly, the same could not have been withdrawn retrospectively; that, the cancellation order dtd. 6/2/2019 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice; that, the ACP benefit constitutes a vested right and property under Article 300-A of the Constitution and cannot be taken away without due process of law. He would further submit that the subsequent Government Order dtd. 30/10/2012, amending the ACP Scheme, specifically provided that benefits already granted under the G.O. dtd. 8/3/2011 shall not be reopened. The Tribunal ignored binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. SPS Vains (2008) 9 SCC 125, which prohibits discriminatory treatment among similarly situated retirees based solely on date of retirement.