Supreme Court clarifies Assured Career Progression (ACP) eligibility for Accounts Clerks: Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (25 April 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 4272

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Pankaj Mithal, J. (authored the judgment)

Can employees be denied financial benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme simply because they lack the educational qualifications required for a higher promotional post? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning Accounts Clerks in Bihar, who were seeking the benefits of ACP. This judgment clarifies that the purpose of ACP is to alleviate stagnation by providing financial benefits, and it should not be conflated with actual promotion.

The core issue was whether the requirement of graduation for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer should also be a mandatory requirement for granting ACP to Accounts Clerks. The Supreme Court, in this case, determined that it should not be, thereby setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

Case Background

The appellants were initially appointed as Accounts Clerks, with the minimum qualification being intermediate. Prior to 1980, there were separate cadres of Junior and Senior Accounts Clerks. These cadres were merged on May 1, 1980, creating a common cadre of Accounts Clerks. In 1999, the cadres were demerged, and the Clerks were retained in their respective cadres without any promotional avenues.

Facing stagnation, the appellants sought the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) upon completing 12 years of service. They argued that they should be granted financial benefits to avoid stagnation, even if they did not possess the qualifications for promotion to the next higher post.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, seeking the benefit of ACP. The learned Single Judge allowed their petitions, relying on earlier decisions of the High Court.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision in the appeals filed by the State of Bihar. The Division Bench held that the qualification of graduation was a mandatory requirement for the grant of ACP, as it was a prerequisite for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer. Since the appellants did not possess this qualification, the Division Bench ruled that they were not eligible for ACP benefits.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case hinges on the interpretation of the following rules:

• Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000: Rule 17 and 20 read with Schedule I, specifies that for promotion to the Bihar Accounts Service, the minimum educational qualification is graduation.
  
  “Rule 17, inter alia , provides that for promotion on the basis of grade of service, candidates must possess qualifications mentioned in Schedule I which, inter alia , provides that for promotion to Bihar Accounts Service, the minimum educational qualification shall be graduation.”
• Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003: Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 states that if the rules prescribe passing a departmental examination or any qualification for promotion, that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme (ACP).
  
  “Bihar State E mployees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 vide sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 lays down that if the rules prescribe passing of the departmental examination or any qualification for promotion that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme.”

The State of Bihar argued that since graduation is a prerequisite for promotion to Accounts Officer, it is also necessary for the grant of ACP. However, the Supreme Court examined the purpose of the ACP scheme to determine if such a strict interpretation was warranted.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the ACP scheme is designed to provide financial benefits to employees who have stagnated in their current positions due to a lack of promotional avenues.
• They contended that the ACP is not a promotion but rather a financial upgrade to the next higher pay scale, without any change in their post or designation.
• They relied on the principle that the educational qualifications required for promotion to a higher post should not be a barrier to receiving the benefits of ACP, which is intended to address stagnation.

State of Bihar’s Submissions:

• The State argued that according to the Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000, graduation is a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer.
• They contended that the Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, also require that any qualification necessary for promotion is also necessary for granting ACP benefits.
• Therefore, the State argued that since the appellants did not possess the qualification of graduation, they were not eligible for ACP benefits.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the qualification of graduation prescribed for promotion to the next higher post of Accounts Officer from that of Accounts Clerk is necessary even for the purpose of extending the benefit of ACP.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Union of India & Others Vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. (2022) 6 SCC 183: The Supreme Court reiterated that the object of ACP/MACP schemes is to relieve frustration from stagnation and provide monetary benefits without actual promotion.
  
  “The object and purpose of ACP/MACP Scheme has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. ( 2022) 6 SCC 183, as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria.”
• Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.Ranjanna and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 721: The Supreme Court held that educational qualifications prescribed for promotion are not necessary for non-functional in-situ promotions designed to remove stagnation.
  
  “In Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.Ranjanna and Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-Judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotion s are made to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits.”
• Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000: Rule 17 and 20 read with Schedule I, specifies that for promotion to the Bihar Accounts Service, the minimum educational qualification is graduation.
• Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003: Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 states that if the rules prescribe passing a departmental examination or any qualification for promotion, that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme (ACP).

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restoring the judgment of the writ court.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Union of India & Others Vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. [2022] 6 SCC 183* to emphasize that the purpose of the ACP scheme is to alleviate stagnation by providing financial benefits without actual promotion.
• The Court cited Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.Ranjanna and Ors. [2008] 14 SCC 721* to support the view that educational qualifications prescribed for promotion are not necessary for non-functional in-situ promotions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the purpose of the ACP scheme, which is to provide financial benefits to employees who have stagnated due to a lack of promotional opportunities. The court emphasized that ACP is not a promotion but a financial upgrade, and therefore, the educational qualifications required for promotion should not be a barrier to receiving ACP benefits.

The Court was also influenced by the fact that insisting on higher qualifications for ACP would frustrate the very purpose of the scheme, which is to alleviate stagnation.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme is intended to provide financial benefits to employees who have stagnated in their current positions due to a lack of promotional avenues.
• The educational qualifications required for promotion to a higher post should not be a barrier to receiving the benefits of ACP.
• The ACP is a financial upgrade to the next higher pay scale, without any change in the post or designation.
• The judgment emphasizes that the purpose of ACP is to alleviate stagnation, and this purpose should not be frustrated by imposing requirements meant for actual promotions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of ACP, as directed by the writ court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the educational qualifications required for promotion to a higher post should not be a barrier to receiving the benefits of ACP. The court reiterated that the purpose of ACP is to alleviate stagnation by providing financial benefits, and it should not be conflated with actual promotion. This judgment clarifies and reinforces the distinction between ACP and promotion, ensuring that employees are not denied financial benefits due to lack of qualifications for a higher post.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. clarifies that the qualification of graduation, though necessary for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, is not a mandatory requirement for granting the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) to Accounts Clerks. The Court emphasized that ACP is a financial upgrade aimed at alleviating stagnation and should not be equated with actual promotion. This decision ensures that employees are not denied financial benefits due to a lack of qualifications meant for a higher post, thereby upholding the purpose of the ACP scheme.