IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6324 of 2007(C)
1. N.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR(HRD), BSNL,
3. SR.DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (BW-1),
4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.D.PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, SC, BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :13/06/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 6324 of 2007
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 13th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 order, which is issued
pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment directing respondents to consider
petitioner’s claim for financial benefits under the ACP (Assured
Career Progression) scheme.
2. I heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for BSNL. I have also gone
through the impugned order and Ext.P13 clarification for
implementation of the ACP scheme. Petitioner joined service as
Draftsman Gr.III on 14/12/1978. However, the post of Draftsman
Gr.III was abolished and consequently petitioner became Draftsman
Gr.II on 19/03/1979 i.e. within three months from the date of
joining service. Petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer (Civil),
which though a promotion post from Draftsman Gr.II, carries the
same pay of Rs.425-700/- of the Draftsman Gr.II. In the course of
time, petitioner got one grade promotion after completion of five
years. Even though, petitioner applied for the benefit of ACP
scheme, which was introduced in 1999, the same was not
considered or granted. However, pursuant to the direction
WP(C) No.6324/2007
-2-
contained in Ext.P8 judgment, 3rd respondent passed Ext.P11 order
declining the benefit to petitioner. The ground for declining
promotion, according to Ext.P11 and according to the arguments of
the learned counsel for BSNL, is that petitioner was given promotion
at two levels i.e. from Draftsman Gr.III to Draftsman Gr.II and from
there to Junior Engineer (Civil) and therefore petitioner is not entitle
to the benefit of ACP scheme. Consequently, promotion under the
pre-existing orders, which was superseded by the ACP Scheme, was
also denied to the petitioner because withdrawal of such benefits is
the necessary pre-condition for considering grant of ACP benefits,
according to Ext.P11.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on Ext.P13
clarification issued on the implementation of ACP scheme. It is seen
from the clarification so issued that promotion to a higher grade
post will not disentitle from the benefit of ACP scheme, when the
scale of pay in the lower grade and the promoted post remain the
same. The clarification, therefore, entitles petitioner the benefit of
upgradation under the ACP scheme. Admittedly, petitioner’s
juniors, i.e., those who joined the service after the petitioner, are
drawing higher pay on account of denial of ACP benefit to petitioner.
WP(C) No.6324/2007
-3-
However, it is sought to be justified in Ext.P11 order by referring to
the two promotions the petitioner has got. Petitioner’s appointment
in the cadre of Draftsman Gr.II is on account of abolition of
Draftsman Gr.III and therefore, no promotion is involved in this
post. So far as the promotion from Draftsman Gr.II to Junior
Engineer (Civil) is concerned, the same does not bar petitioner from
getting the benefit of ACP scheme as the pay scale of Draftsman
Gr.II and Junior Engineer (Civil) is admittedly one and the same.
Going by Ext.P13 clarification, I am of the view that petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of ACP scheme. Moreover, I find, no
justification in 3rd respondent denying the benefit that already
accrued to petitioner, without granting the benefit under ACP
scheme. In the circumstances, I allow the writ petition directing
respondents to grant financial benefit to petitioner under the ACP
scheme on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service without
any delay. However, the direction to grant the benefit under ACP
scheme will not stand in the way of BSNL to implement their policy
for promotion and pay scales subsequently introduced in
supersession of ACP scheme, and to implement its own service
Rules and terms of promotion, if ACP scheme is no longer in force.
WP(C) No.6324/2007
-4-
However, ACP scheme should be granted to petitioner, as far as
possible, consistent with the promotion Rules of BSNL.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg