... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CISF
...
Respondent
JUDGMENT
In Ext.P3, the
fixed
on
that
basis.
Subsequently, by
Ext.P4,
the
petitioner's
not successfully complete the course and therefore, he was held not entitled
to the benefits of the A.C.P. Scheme. Consequently, his pay was reduced and
consequently, his pension, is the decision in Ext.P6. The petitioner is
challenging Exts.P4 and P6 seeking the following reliefs;
"(a)
Call for the records leading upto Ext.P7 and quash Ext.P6 and P4
of the petitioner that he could not complete the Promotion Cadre Course. He
was detailed only once for undergoing the course and he attended the
course, but finding that he is not medically fit to undergo the Promotion
Cadre Course, he was removed from the course. The petitioner further
submits that all persons were granted four chances for successfully
completing the Promotion Cadre Course. Before the petitioner could avail of
four chances, he had retired on 1.6.2003 and, therefore, the A.C.P. benefits
already granted to the petitioner cannot be withdrawn on the ground that he
has not successfully completed the Promotion Cadre Course and also the
pension reduced based on the same, is the petitioner's contention.
3.
stand that, for becoming eligible for the benefits of the A.C.P. Scheme, an
employee should have all the qualifications prescribed for the promotion
post, the scale of pay of which is given as A.C.P. benefit. They would submit
that as per Ext.R3(a) Rules, for Head Constables, for promotion as Assistant
Sub Inspector, the qualifications prescribed are as follows;
(ii) Promotion: From amongst the Head Constable (General Duty) and
Head Constable (Driver) who have completed 5 years regular service in the
rank being in medical category SHAPE-I and have
successfully completed
(Executive)
before
being
The next question that arises for consideration is, whether, if non-
completion of the Promotion Cadre Course is not because of any fault of the
petitioner, the petitioner can be denied the A.C.P. promotion. I am of opinion
that for A.C.P. promotion, all conditions for regular promotion are to be
satisfied, which includes successful completion of Promotion Cadre Course. It
is immaterial as to whether because of whose fault the petitioner could not
successfully complete the Promotion Cadre Course. The respondents would
further contend that for successful completion of the Promotion Cadre
Course, the petitioner should be in SHAPE I Medical category, which medical
category is fixed depending on various physical and mental conditions of the
persons aspiring for promotion. The petitioner was never in SHAPE I medical
condition, is the contention raised by the respondents. Whatever that be, it
is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not successfully completed the
Promotion Cadre Course, which is a condition precedent for becoming
eligible for the benefits of A.C.P. Scheme. Therefore, I do not find any
infirmity in the action of the respondents in cancelling the A.C.P. Scheme
promotion given to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not
successfully completed the Promotion Cadre Course. Consequently, the
A.C.P. promotion granted to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled and the
pay of the petitioner has to be reduced as also, retirement benefits
///True copy///