( 2026:HHC:20627 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 980 of 2024 Reserved on: 05.05.2026 Decided on: 29.05.2026 Raj Kumar Guleria …. Petitioner. -Versus- Union of India and others …..Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral): By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari by setting aside the office memorandum dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-7), whereby the representation of the petitioner was not considered, (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant the benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS/MACPS) on completion of 12 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) [10/20/30] years of services counted from 03.02.1984 with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined Indo Tibet Border Police as a Naik (Radio Operator) in the year 1984. He was selected for the post of Head Constable (Radio Technician) on 20.05.1988. According to the petitioner, before the year 2006, the Seniority Lists of Radio Operator and Radio Technician were maintained separately, but thereafter, as a result of amendment in the Rules, the seniority lists of the said two categories were merged and a common seniority list was prepared as “Communication Cadre”. According to the petitioner, this was done without providing any opportunity to him to submit his objections, if any, against the same. It is further the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Notification issued in the year 1997, the rank of Naik was abolished and was upgraded to the post of Head Constable. As per him, the service rendered by him on the post of Naik, after abolition of the said post, were to be considered as service rendered on the post of Head Constable, for the purpose of Assured Career Progression Scheme. This Scheme was brought into force on the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission on 09.08.1999. According to the petitioner, he was entitled for the Assured 3. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) Career Progression Scheme in the year 1996 after completion of 12 years of service, but the Assured Career Progression Scheme came into force w.e.f. 09.08.1999. Thereafter, he became entitled for the same w.e.f. 09.08.1999. However, the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme, at the first instance, was given to the petitioner on 20.05.2000, through it was due w.e.f. 09.08.1999. On the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced on 19.05.2009. The respondents accepted the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission and under the said Scheme, financial up-gradations were to be given at the interval of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service. According to the petitioner, he was wrongly denied the first Assured Career Progression Scheme on 09.08.1999. As the wrong was still continuing, he made a representation in this regard on 25.11.2016. Similarly situated persons filed certain writ petitions in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which were allowed. Petitioner again represented the respondent-Department vide Annexure P-6, dated 10.09.2021. However, vide Annexure P-7, dated 19.09.2023, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and, hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of benefit of Assured Career 4. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) Progression Scheme on completion of requisite years of service as construed from 03.02.1984, with all consequential benefits alongwith interest and the non-grant thereof is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also argued that Office Memorandum dated 19.09.2023 was also bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed. No other point was urged. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, by referring to the reply filed by the respondents, submitted that the petition was barred by delays and laches. He submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable (Radio Operator) on 03.02.1984 and later on, when the post of Constable (Radio Operator) and the post of Naik (Radio Operator) were merged, the petitioner joined as a Naik (Radio Operator) on 21.03.1984. Learned Senior Panel Counsel further submitted that in the year 1988, the petitioner appeared in the departmental recruitment examination for the post of Head Constable (Radio Technician) and after submitting his technical resignation from the post of Naik (Radio Operator), he was appointed as Head Constable (Radio Technician) w.e.f. 20.05.1988. The first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.05.2000 upon completion of 12 years of regular service in the rank 5. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) of Head Constable (Radio Technician). Thereafter, in the year 2016, the petitioner alongwith four other personnel represented against the first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to them and requested for the conferment of benefit w.e.f. 09.08.1999. In response thereto, vide communication dated 25.11.2016, the Directorate General, ITBPF apprised that in terms of the provisions contained in DoP& T, Government of India’s U.O. Note dated 10th February, 2000, it stood clarified that if the appointment was made in higher pay scale either on the basis of direct recruitment or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer) basis, then such appointment shall be treated as direct recruitment and past service/promotion shall not count for the benefit of Assured Career Progression. He also submitted that the 2nd Bn. He also submitted that the 2nd Bn. ITBPF, Kullu, H.P., on the request of the petitioner, submitted a Board proceeding comprising of recommendation for grant of 1st ACP to the petitioner w.e.f. 09.08.1999 instead of 02.05.2000, but the said proposal was rejected by Sector Hqrs., Shimla ITBPF vide O.M. No. 7014 dated 19.09.2023, on the ground that the 1st ACP was granted to the petitioner on 20.05.2000 on completion of 12 years of service as Head Constable (Radio Technician). On these bases, learned counsel 6. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings, including the rejoinder and sur-rejoinder, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. 6. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1997, rank of Naik was abolished and upgraded to the post of Head Constable and the service rendered by him on the post of Naik, after abolition of the said post, was to be considered as service rendered against the post of Head Constable, for the purpose of Assured Career Progression Scheme. 7. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent- Department is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable (Radio Operator) on 03.02.1984 in the pay scale of Rs.210-270/- and after merger of this post with the post of Naik (Radio Operator), he was appointed as Naik (Radio Operator) on 21.03.1984 in the pay scale of Rs.225-308/-. It is further the stand of the Department that in the year 1988, while serving as Naik (Radio Operator), the petitioner appeared in the departmental recruitment examination for the post of Head Constable (Radio Technician) and being successful, he was appointed as Head Constable (Radio Technician) in the pay scale of Rs.975- 7. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) 1660/-, after accepting his technical resignation from the post of Naik (Radio Operator). These facts are not in dispute. 8. These facts demonstrate that while serving as Naik (Radio Operator), the petitioner appeared in the departmental recruitment for higher post and he was selected against the higher post of Head Constable (Radio Technician), which obviously was having higher pay scale than that of the post held by him, i.e., Naik (Radio Operator). It was in the light of these facts that the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme upon completion of 12 years of service was conferred upon the petitioner after he had put in 12 years of regular service as Head Constable (Radio Technician). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the post of Naik was abolished and upgraded as Head Constable, whereas, it is evident from the record that the petitioner had participated in the process of recruitment against the post of Head Constable. On being successful and after submitting technical resignation against the post of Naik, he was offered appointment on the post of Head Constable. Obviously, as subsequent appointment of the petitioner was not only against the higher post, but also against a post which carried higher pay scale as compared to the post manned by the petitioner, the services rendered by him as Naik (Radio Operator) could not have been taken into consideration for 8. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) conferment of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme upon him. The stagnation from the perspective of the petitioner was to be construed on the basis of post held by him and once the petitioner stood recruited against the higher post of Head Constable (Radio Technician) w.e.f. 20.05.1988, consideration of his past service rendered on the post of Naik (Radio Operator) at least for the purpose of Assured Career Progression Scheme was of no consequence upon his re-appointment against the post of Head Constable (Radio Technician) w.e.f. 20.05.1988. Obviously, the petitioner was to be given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme only after he had put in the requisite service against the post of Head Constable (Radio Technician). The petitioner wants the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme by taking into consideration the services rendered on the post of Naik (Radio Operator), which in the considered view of this Court, cannot be given to him. This is more so in light of the provisions contained in DoP&T Govt. of India’s U.O. Note dated 10th February, 2000, which stands mentioned in the reply filed by the Department, which incidentally is not under challenge before this Court. As far as the issue of discrimination raised by the petitioner in Para-7 of the petition is concerned, the same has been answered by the Department in Para-7 of the reply by stating that whereas the petitioner 9. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) was appointed as a Head Constable on 20.05.1988 and first ACP was conferred upon him w.e.f. 20.05.2000, following 12 years of continuous service from the date of appointment, conversely certain candidates enlisted as Constable and Naik (Radio Operator) during the year 1983- 84, who were benefited from the ACP Scheme, were presumed to have assumed the rank of Head Constable (Radio Operator) from their date of appointment, as they did not tender technical resignations during their tenure of service akin to the petitioner. Incidentally, in Para-7 of the rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that the technical resignation was merely a procedural formality that neither interrupted service continuity nor affected entitlement to count prior service for ACP purposes, meaning thereby that the petitioner accepts that he tendered technical resignation, which is demonstrative of the fact that it is not as if the post of Naik was abolished or upgraded to that of Head Constable and the petitioner automatically became Head Constable. Indeed, the petitioner was appointed as Head Constable w.e.f. 20.05.1988 by way of direct recruitment, on his participating in a process for appointment against the post in issue. 9. In the light of above discussion, as obviously the length of service for the purpose of conferment of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in the case of the petitioner was to be construed 10. ( 2026:HHC:20627 ) as from the date when he was appointed against the post of Head Constable (Radio Technician) and as, admittedly, upon completion of 12 years of service as Head Constable (Radio Technician), the benefit of the Scheme was conferred upon the petitioner, there is no merit in the present petition and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned communication, i.e., Office Memorandum dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-7). 10. In light of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 29, 2026 (bhupender)