Assured Career Progression Different From Increment, Govt Servants Not Entitled To ACP Post-Retirement: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, in a recent judgement, has held that government employees would not be entitled to Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) after their retirement. The Court held that Assured Career Progressions are distinct from Increments and cannot be awarded in the same way.

“If a government servant, who has already retired from service and becomes entitled to his ACP, a day after his retirement, he too has no right to it,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

Case Background

Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Boring Technician on 16.02.1986 and was superannuated on 31.10.2019 from the post of a Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation serving at Hapur. During the course of his career, petitioner received two ACPs. First, on completion of 14 years of satisfactory service and second, on 16 years of having completed such service. Petitioner was promoted from the post of Boring Technician to a Junior Engineer on 29.06.2018. Petitioner contended that he was due a third ACP based on his completion of 26 years of satisfactory service as on 31.10.2019.

Due to inaction regarding his third ACP, petitioner submitted representations to both the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Department of Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Wing, Hapur, to which he received no response. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred a writ petition before the High Court.

Counsel for petitioner staked claim to the third ACP on the basis of a Government Order dated 05.11.2014. It was submitted that like increments, which were earned during the year and would be payable on the day following retirement, granted notionally to the employee for the purpose of determining his post retiral dues, ACPs were to be granted in the same manner.

Reliance was placed on the decision in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. where Supreme Court held that annual increment earned by an employee throughout the year would be granted notionally to the employee despite his retirement occurring a day before the amount was due.

Further, it was submitted that despite the petitioner not being conferred his third ACP, employees junior to him had been given the benefit of the their third ACP by office order dated 26.04.2023.

Per Contra, counsel for respondents in their affidavit brought on record facts and dates relevant to the petitioner's hiring and promotions. It was submitted regarding the grievance of petitioner concerning the grant of the third ACP to the five Junior Engineers, that each of them had been granted their ACP due to the fact that they were still in service on the day they became entitled to such benefit. It was submitted by the respondents that the third ACP was due to petitioner on 01.11.2019 but he retired from service on 31.10.2019, a fact that was not disputed by the petitioner, making him ineligible for his ACP.

High Court Verdict

The Court stated that an increment is a routine acceleration that accrues on regular intervals to a government employee for his work throughout the year. It was held the that in the case of an increment, if a government servant completed the period of time entitling him to an increment but retired on the day it would be awarded to him, he would be notionally granted such amount. However, the Court was of the view that an increment is distinct from an ACP.

The Court held that an ACP is a device that has been created to counter the problem of stagnation of government employees in avenues where there are no promotions available. It held that a government employee who retired from service even a day before he became entitled to his ACP would not be granted it post such retirement.

The Court held that the test for the grant of ACP is if on the date a government employee demands his ACP, would he be entitled to consideration for a promotion.

“Let us take the case of a government servant, who says that under the rules he would be entitled to promotion on the date following his retirement. Would he be entitled to enforce his right in a Court against the employers to consider his case for promotion, albeit notionally. This Court is of opinion that the answer is an obvious no.”

Further, the Court held that the right to be considered for a promotion under the rules had to be judged for a person who was still in service when such right accrued. This not being the case, the Court, taking into account the fact that no other grounds had been raised other than the applicability of the rules of notional increment to the grant of an ACP, found the claims of the petitioner to be untenable.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Chandrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 19066 of 2023]

Click Here To Read/Download Order