MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON M P POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO V/S NARENDRA JIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9:

1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.20383/2016, whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed with a direction to the appellant to extend the benefit of third ACP on completion of 30 years of service, from the date of initial appointment.

2. Heard with the consent of parties for the purpose of final disposal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 was initially appointed as English Stenographer by the order dated 31.03.1984 on probation for a period of one year and after completing the probation period successfully, he was appointed as Junior Stenographer w.e.f. 23.01.1987. Benefit of first Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme was extended to the respondent No.1 by order dated 31.03.1997 and second ACP on 15.03.2005. The respondent No.1 superannuated on 31.10.2015. He claimed the benefit of third ACP on the ground that he completed the service of 31 years from the date of initial appointment, and therefore, he is entitled for the said benefit. The appellant denied the benefit of third ACP on the ground that the respondent No.1 was regularized on 13.10.1987 w.e.f. 23.01.1987 and from 23.01.1987, he has not completed period of 30 years before superannuation. The respondent No.1 preferred the writ petition seeking direction to the appellant to extend the benefit of third ACP to the respondent No.1, which was allowed by impugned order dated 21.08.2025, hence the present writ appeal has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the respondent No.1 was initially appointed on probation on 31.03.1984, he was regularized after completing the period of probation w.e.f. 23.01.1987, therefore, for the purpose of calculation of qualifying period for extending the benefit of third ACP, the relevant date is the date of regularization and as the respondent No.1 did not complete qualifying period of 30 years from the date of regularization, the department has not committed any error in not extending the benefit of third ACP to the respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the order passed by the writ court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was initially appointed on 31.03.1984 and superannuated on 31.10.2015, after completing the service of 31 years. The claim of respondent No.1 was turned down by the department vide order dated 03.06.2016 on the ground that from the date of regularization, the respondent No.1 had not completed 30 years of total length of service as on 31.10.2015.

7. In our considered view, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are not acceptable. The period of probation/training is required to be counted for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale as well as for the purpose of grant of benefit of ACP scheme. The learned writ court has relied upon the clause (xi) of ACP scheme, which postulates that the service rendered by the employee as trainee shall be counted for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale, and therefore, the relevant date for the purpose of computation of period of 30 years was 31.03.1984 i.e. the date of initial appointment.

8. Consequently, we find no error in the order passed by learned Single Judge to extend the benefit of first ACP to the respondent No.1 on completion of 09 years i.e. on 07.04.1993, second benefit on 07.04.2002 and third benefit after completing 30 years of qualifying service from the initial date of appointment. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.