Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for employees refusing promotions in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 3 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 1

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a government employee who refuses a promotion claim financial benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, designed to alleviate stagnation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the conditions under which employees are eligible for financial upgradation. This judgment clarifies the scope of the ACP scheme for central government employees who refuse promotions. The bench comprised Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case involves several employees of the Central Government who were initially granted financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The ACP Scheme, introduced in 1999, aimed to provide financial relief to employees who did not receive promotions after 12 and 24 years of service.

Manju Arora and Suman Lata Bhatia, appointed as Senior Translators (Hindi), were offered promotions to Translation Officer (Hindi) but declined these promotions due to personal reasons. Despite initially receiving benefits under the ACP Scheme, these benefits were later withdrawn by the employer, citing a clarification issued on 18.7.2001 which stated that employees who refuse promotions are not eligible for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.

Similarly, Kanta Suri and Veena Arora, also Senior Translators (Hindi), were offered promotions on an officiating basis, meaning their promotions were temporary and subject to reversion. These promotions were also declined by the employees.

The employees challenged the withdrawal of their ACP benefits before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, which ruled against them. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the employees were eligible for the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, even if they had refused promotions.

The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal initially ruled against the employees, holding that they were not entitled to ACP benefits because they had refused regular promotions. The Tribunal noted that the ACP Scheme was intended for employees who faced stagnation due to a lack of promotional opportunities, not for those who voluntarily chose to remain in their current positions.

The Delhi High Court, however, overturned the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court interpreted the ACP Scheme to mean that while refusing a promotion would impact an employee’s second upgradation, it would not affect their eligibility for the first upgradation. The High Court concluded that the employees were wrongly denied the first financial upgradation.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, introduced by the Government of India through an Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 9.8.1999. This scheme aimed to provide financial upgradation to Central Government civilian employees who did not receive promotions within specified periods.

The relevant conditions of the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 are:

• Condition 5.1: “Two financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme in the entire Government Service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in-situ promotion and fast track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit. This shall mean that two financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotion during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. If a employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial up-gradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him.”

• Condition 10: “Grant of higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme shall be conditional to the fact that an employee, while accepting the said benefit, shall be deemed to have given his unqualified acceptance for regular promotion on occurrence of vacancy subsequently. In case he refuses to accept the higher post on regular promotion subsequently, he shall be subject to normal debarment for regular promotion as prescribed in the general instructions in this regard. However, as and when he accepts regular promotion thereafter, he shall become eligible for the second up-gradation under the ACP Scheme only after he completes the required eligibility service/ period under the ACP Scheme in that higher grade subject to the condition that the period for which he was debarred for regular promotion shall not count for the purpose. For example, if a persons has got one financial up-gradation after rendering 12 years of regular service and after 2 years there from if he refuses regular promotion and is consequently debarred for one year and subsequently he is promoted to the higher grade on regular basis after completion of 15 years (12+12+1) of regular service, he shall be eligible for consideration for the second up-gradation under the ACP Scheme only after rendering ten more years in addition to two years of service already rendered by him after the first financial up-gradation (2+10) in the higher grade i.e. after 25 years (12+12+1) of regular service because the debarment period of one year cannot be taken into account towards the required 12 years of regular service in that higher grade.”

The O.M. dated 18.7.2001 clarified that employees who refused regular promotions offered before the grant of ACP benefits would be ineligible for such benefits.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The appellants argued that the ACP Scheme was introduced as a “safety net” for employees who faced stagnation due to a lack of promotional avenues.

• They contended that the employees who refused regular promotions should not be entitled to the benefits of the ACP scheme, as they were not stagnating due to lack of opportunities, but due to their own choice.

• The appellants emphasized that Condition 5.1 of the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 clearly states that financial upgradation is available only if no regular promotion has been availed by an employee during the prescribed periods of 12 and 24 years.

• The appellants cited the clarificatory O.M. dated 18.7.2001, which specifically stated that employees who refused regular promotions before the grant of ACP benefits are ineligible for such benefits.

• The appellants argued that the High Court misinterpreted Condition 10 of the O.M. dated 9.8.1999, which deals with the impact of refusing a promotion after receiving a financial upgradation, and not before.

Arguments by the Respondents (Employees):

• The respondents argued that the ACP Scheme is intended to provide financial relief to employees who have served for long periods without promotion.

• They contended that Condition 10 of the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 implies that refusing a promotion would only impact their second upgradation and not their first.

• The respondents argued that they were eligible for the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, even if they had refused promotions.

• The respondents relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment, which stated that the employees were rightly given the benefit of the first upgradation, which could not have been withdrawn.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether employees who have refused regular promotions are entitled to financial upgradation benefits under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 (Assured Career Progression Scheme).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear wording of the ACP Scheme and the intent behind it. The Court emphasized that the scheme was designed to address genuine stagnation due to a lack of promotional opportunities, not for employees who voluntarily choose to remain in their current positions by refusing promotions. The Court also found the clarification issued on 18.7.2001 to be significant in clarifying the eligibility criteria. The Court also highlighted the administrative difficulties that arise when employees refuse promotions, as it can create difficulties in manning higher positions.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal interpretation of the ACP scheme and related documents, with less emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Decision

The Supreme Court held that employees who refuse regular promotions are not entitled to the financial upgradation benefits under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999. The Court emphasized that the ACP Scheme was designed to address genuine stagnation due to a lack of promotional opportunities, and not for employees who voluntarily choose to remain in their current positions by refusing promotions.

The Court stated that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted the O.M. dated 9.8.1999, particularly Condition 10, which the Court clarified applies after an employee has received an upgradation, and not before. The Court relied on the clear language of Condition 5.1 of the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 and the clarification issued on 18.7.2001, which specifically stated that employees who refuse regular promotions before the grant of ACP benefits are ineligible for such benefits.

The Court also invoked the doctrine of “Approbate and Reprobate,” stating that the employees cannot simultaneously accept the benefits of the scheme and refuse the promotion offered to them.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “In the entire service career, an employee is entitled to financial upgradation if the concerned employee had to suffer stagnation in the same post without benefit of any regular promotion…”

• “We are quite certain that if a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because she has suffered stagnation.”

• “The concerned employees cannot therefore be allowed to simultaneously approbate and reprobate, or to put it colloquially, “eat their cake and have it too”.”

However, the Court made an exception for Kanta Suri and Veena Arora, who were offered promotions on an officiating basis, meaning their promotions were temporary and subject to reversion. The Court held that their refusal of such conditional promotions would not disentitle them from the benefits of the ACP Scheme.

Key Takeaways

• Employees who refuse regular promotions are not eligible for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.

• The ACP Scheme is intended for employees who face stagnation due to a lack of promotional opportunities, not for those who voluntarily refuse promotions.

• The doctrine of “Approbate and Reprobate” applies in such cases, meaning employees cannot accept the benefits of the scheme and refuse promotions simultaneously.

• Conditional or officiating promotions, which are subject to reversion, do not disqualify employees from the benefits of the ACP Scheme if refused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the consequential relief under this order should be made available to the two eligible employees (Kanta Suri and Veena Arora) within three months from the date of the judgment, if not already granted.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, specifically addressing the eligibility of employees who refuse promotions. The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees who refuse regular promotions are not entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. This judgment reinforces the principle that the ACP Scheme is a safety net for those facing stagnation due to lack of opportunities, not a benefit for those who voluntarily choose to remain in their current positions. The Court’s decision also highlights the application of the doctrine of “Approbate and Reprobate” in service law matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Manju Arora clarifies that employees who refuse regular promotions are not eligible for financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The Court upheld the intent of the scheme, which is to provide relief to employees facing stagnation due to a lack of promotional opportunities, and not for those who voluntarily choose to remain in their current positions by refusing promotions. The judgment reinforces the principle that an employee cannot simultaneously accept the benefits of a scheme and refuse the corresponding obligations. However, the Court made an exception for employees who were offered conditional promotions, clarifying that refusal of such promotions would not disentitle them from the benefits of the ACP Scheme.