D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand-respondent in W.P.(S) No. 4969 of 2010. The writ petition was preferred by respondent No. 1 for getting the benefit of Assured Career Progression which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, original respondent has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants: * It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was initially appointed as Extra Clerk on 2nd August, 1971. Thereafter, he was appointed as Temporary Clerk on 21st May, 1981. The appointment on the post of Temporary Clerk was on the pay scale of Rs. 220-550/-, whereas, appointment on the post of Extra Clerk was for a fixed or lump sum remuneration per month. * It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that earlier there was a Scheme floated by the appellants known as Time Bound Promotion Scheme which was in existence till 31st December, 1995. Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was given first time bound promotion on 22nd May, 1991. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was given regular promotion to the post of Permanent Clerk on 17th April, 1999 as per the letter of promotion dated 17th April, 1999 which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. It appears that promotion was given to respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) on the post of Permanent Clerk, for which, the pay scale was Rs. 1,200-1800/- at the relevant time (now there is enhancement in the pay scale). * It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Time Bound Promotion Scheme brought to an end by 31st December, 1995 and Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme has been floated by the appellants-State. As per this ACP Scheme, if any employee has been given promotion, then he will be entitled to the benefit of ACP-Scheme. Thus, first time bound promotion was already given in the year 1991 and, thereafter, promotion was given in the year 1999 and, hence, no benefit of ACP can be given to respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) unless, he completes 12 years from the year 1999, but, in the facts of the present case, respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) has already reached to the age of superannuation in the year 2003. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, grant of ACP benefit by the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4969 of 2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) : * Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that from the post of Temporary Clerk to the post of Permanent Clerk, there is no promotion. * Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon the letter of the year 1995 which is annexed as annexure in the rejoinder affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) in the writ petition. * It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in granting the benefit of Assured Career Progression under the ACP Scheme, floated by the appellants-State because after the year 1991, 12 years' period has already lapsed and respondent No. 1 retired in the year 2003 without ACP benefit and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may be entertained by this Court. Reasons: ;