K SREERAMULU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the fourth respondent in No. E-31014/CISC/CHPT/Adm-I/ACPS/2008-6512 dated 18.11.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant the petitioner the first financial up gradation with effect from 11.10.2008 and grant all attendant benefits including arrears of pay.) The petitioner, who was initially appointed as Constable on 11.10.1984 and who, on promotion, is now working as Head Constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit [for short, 'CISF Unit'], Chennai Port Trust, Chennai, had qualified himself in the Promotion Cadre Course [for short, 'PCC'] to the next higher post of Assistant Sub-Inspector / Executive. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any promotional opportunities from the date of his initial appointment on 11.10.1984 till 2005, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable only on 19.9.2005 and, therefore, he ought to have been granted financial up gradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme with effect from the date of the Scheme, viz., 09.8.1999. It is stated that though he was not able to avail the first opportunity of PCC for Constables to the next promotional post of Head Constable on account of medical grounds, he qualified himself for the grant of financial up gradation by coming out successful in the PCC held during 2001 for which results were declared on 15.01.2002 and the first financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme was granted only with effect from 30.01.2002 and not from 09.8.1999, the date of implementation of the scheme. Since the representation filed by him seeking for grant of financial up gradation under the ACP scheme was rejected by the fourth respondent Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, Chennai Port Trust, he has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records and also the ACP Scheme and the Rules.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents submitted that since the petitioner, on his volition, submitted his unwillingness to appear for PCC for the first time, his case was not considered and subsequently, when he appeared for PCC during 24.8.2001 and 09.11.2001 and passed the same on 15.01.2002, he was granted the benefit of first ACP on 30.01.2002.