Kewala Nand Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Petitioner was appointed in Finance Department of the State Government on 03.01.1974 and he retired from the post of Sub-Treasury Officer on 31.01.2012. He has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:-

i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order/letter dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Director, Treasury and Finance Services, Uttarakhand to the extend the claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Treasury Officer as well as benefit of selection grade and promotional pay scale has been rejected.

ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents give notional promotion to the Petitioner on the post of Treasury Office w.e.f. the date junior to him were promoted to the post of Treasury Officer or in alternative sanction selection grade and promotional pay scale in favour of the Petitioner in accordance with law and to pay all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and pension etc.

iii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the benefit of 3rd Assured Carrier Progression in accordance with the mandate of recommendation of 6th pay commission as adopted by the State of Uttarakhand and revise the pension and other service benefits applicable to the Petitioner accordingly with all the consequential benefits.

iv) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to refund the entire amount deduction from the salary of the Petitioner in respect of salary paid to the Petitioner during his posting as Treasury Officer, Bageshwar.

According to the petitioner, benefit of third Assured Career Progression (in short "ACP") became payable to him w.e.f. 01.09.2008, while the said benefit was given belatedly to him w.e.f. 07.09.2011. As per Government Policy, third ACP is given to a Government servant upon completion of 26 years of satisfactory service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that persons junior to the petitioner, namely, Lalit Kumar Sahni, Tilak Ram, Sajjan Singh Gosain etc., were also given benefit of third ACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Competent Authority to grant him benefit of third ACP from due date.

Petitioner has also claimed regular promotion to the post of Treasury Officer w.e.f. the date, persons junior to him were promoted. He has also sought a direction to the authorities to refund the difference of salary, which was recovered from the petitioner on the ground that he was promoted as Treasury Officer by an authority, who was not competent for the purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that adverse entry, if any, was never communicated to the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be made a ground for denying promotion to him.

It has come on record that petitioner's name was sent to the Public Service Commission for promotion to the post of Treasury Officer. On account of some adverse material against him, he was declared unsuitable for promotion, therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Treasury Officer.

Likewise, the prayer for refund of salary already recovered from the petitioner cannot be granted, inasmuch as, the order of recovery was passed by Director of Treasury, long back. Petitioner never challenged the said order before any judicial forum and he allowed the deduction to be made from his salary, therefore, he cannot now challenge the said recovery order at this belated stage.

Since, according to the petitioner, he became entitled to third ACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008, upon completing 26 years of satisfactory service in the Department and the benefit of third ACP was given to him after three years w.e.f. 7.09.2011, therefore, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if the Director of Treasury is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner, regarding grant of third ACP from due date.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director of Treasury to examine petitioner's claim for grant of third ACP from due date and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Director of Treasury shall also consider whether adverse entry, if any, was communicated to the petitioner and if not, then the Director of Treasury shall also examine petitioner's claim for notional promotion to the post of Treasury Officer from the date his juniors have been promoted, within the same period.