2017 (9) TMI 1874 - HC - Indian Laws

Actual monetary benefits of grant of 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) - payment of arrears of such benefits - passing of examination as required under Rule 21(1) of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III and Class-IV) Rules 1998 for availing such benefit - HELD THAT - In the absence of holding of departmental examination denying the benefit of ACP to the appellant will amount to taking advantage of own default. It is elementary principle of law that one cannot take advantage of its own cause - In All India Groundnut Syndicate vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1953 (9) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Hon ble Mr. Justice Chagla Chief Justice has laid down the principle that one cannot take advantage of his own default. Thus the appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of non-holding of examination by the respondents and the appellant is entitled to grant of the benefit under ACP Scheme treating the appellant to have passed the departmental examination with effect from the date the Scheme of ACP was introduced firstly on the ground that Civil Court Rules was framed in 1998 wherein the requirement of passing departmental examination was introduced and secondly that in the very first departmental examination held on 29.6.2003 the appellant was declared successful. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of ACP Rules and Bihar Civil Court Staff Rules
2. Validity of recovery of alleged excess amount
3. Entitlement under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme
4. Impact of non-holding of departmental examination on ACP benefits

Interpretation of ACP Rules and Bihar Civil Court Staff Rules:
The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the Writ Court's order regarding the grant of ACP benefits. The Writ Court held that passing the departmental examination is a prerequisite for ACP benefits and that the appellant was entitled to benefits only from 29.6.2003. The appellant argued that the departmental examination was first held in 2003, and he passed it in the first attempt, so he should not be penalized for the delay in conducting the exam. The High Court referred to legal principles stating that one cannot benefit from their own default. Citing precedents, the High Court emphasized that denying ACP benefits due to the government's failure to hold examinations would be unjust and arbitrary.

Validity of recovery of alleged excess amount:
The appellant's counsel argued that recovering the alleged excess amount from the appellant, who retired in 2011, was unjustifiable. The High Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the recovery decision was unsustainable, especially considering the lack of departmental examinations before 2003. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support its decision that individuals should not suffer due to the government's failures.

Entitlement under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme:
The Writ Court directed an examination of the appellant's case under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme within three months. The High Court upheld this direction, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellant's service length under the 2010 Rules.

Impact of non-holding of departmental examination on ACP benefits:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Writ Court's decision to restrict ACP benefits from 29.6.2003. The court ruled that the appellant should be entitled to the first and second ACP benefits from 9.8.1999 and 2.3.2003, respectively, considering the circumstances of the case. The High Court also approved other directions of the Writ Court regarding benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and the 6th Pay Revision Commission. The judgment favored the appellant based on legal principles and precedents, ensuring fair treatment despite the government's delays in conducting departmental examinations.