Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Assured Career Progression Benefits

The Supreme Court of India has ruled in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr., addressing a crucial dispute regarding the eligibility of Central Government employees for benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The case involved multiple government employees who had refused regular promotions but later claimed financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the respondents, including Manju Arora, Suman Lata Bhatia, and others, who were working as Senior Translators (Hindi), were offered promotions to Translation Officer (Hindi) on a regular basis. However, due to personal reasons, they declined the offered promotions. Initially, these employees were granted financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on November 15, 1999. Later, upon scrutiny, their benefits were withdrawn by orders dated September 4, 2002, and October 10, 2002.

The government’s decision was based on a clarification issued through an Office Memorandum (OM) dated July 18, 2001, which explicitly stated that employees who refused promotions were not entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.

The affected employees challenged the withdrawal of ACP benefits before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled against them. However, on appeal, the Delhi High Court set aside the CAT order, holding that the refusal of a promotion should only impact the employee’s eligibility for the second upgradation, not the first.

The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Union of India)

The government contended that the ACP Scheme was introduced to mitigate stagnation for employees who had no opportunity for promotion, not for those who voluntarily refused promotions.
It argued that employees who declined promotion should not be allowed to claim financial benefits intended to address lack of promotional avenues.
The government maintained that as per the OM dated July 18, 2001, refusal to accept a promotion made an employee ineligible for financial upgradation.
It emphasized that an employee cannot simultaneously refuse a promotion while seeking financial benefits meant for those suffering from lack of promotion.

Arguments by the Respondents (Manju Arora & Others)

The respondents argued that they had been granted ACP benefits before the July 18, 2001, clarification, and the withdrawal was arbitrary.
They contended that the original OM dated August 9, 1999, did not explicitly prohibit ACP benefits for those who refused promotions.
They claimed that as per Condition No. 10 of the ACP Scheme, refusal of a promotion should only impact their eligibility for the second financial upgradation, not the first.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, ruled in favor of the Union of India, overturning the Delhi High Court’s decision.

The Court observed:

“The ACP Scheme was introduced as a ‘safety net’ to deal with genuine stagnation and hardship faced by employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues. An employee who has been offered a regular promotion but refuses the same cannot be said to be suffering from stagnation.”

The Court further stated:

“The benefit of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotion during the prescribed intervals (12 and 24 years) has been availed by an employee. Those who voluntarily refuse a promotion cannot claim financial upgradation for the same period.”

The Court ruled that:

Employees who refuse regular promotions cannot be considered eligible for ACP benefits.
The July 18, 2001, OM served only as a clarification of the original policy and was not an amendment.
The respondents’ claim that only the second upgradation should be affected was incorrect, as financial upgradation cannot be availed by those who voluntarily opt out of promotional opportunities.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court held:

“We find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Consequently, it is declared that employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the OM dated 9.8.1999.”

The Court upheld the government’s decision to withdraw ACP benefits from the respondents.

However, the Court provided relief to two employees, Kanta Suri and Veena Arora, who had been offered only an officiating promotion rather than a regular one. The Court held that since their promotion was not permanent, their refusal should not disqualify them from ACP benefits.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling reinforces that employees who refuse promotions cannot claim financial upgradation benefits.
It upholds the government’s authority to enforce eligibility conditions for career progression schemes.
The judgment clarifies that the OM dated July 18, 2001, was a clarification rather than a modification, meaning employees could not claim benefits retrospectively.
It sets a precedent for similar disputes regarding career advancement policies in government service.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Ors..
Respondent Name: Manju Arora & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 03-01-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: union-of-india-&-ors-vs-manju-arora-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-01-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category