Baldev Singh Bhulana v. State Of Punjab & ORS
!"#"##$ %&'( )**+% """
, -,+ ( + ./ &*, """
0 &
!
"""
!
CM-19894-CWP-2024 !#
$ ! % ! & !
!
' ( )
1.
In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that petitioner has not been granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in the Cadre of Assistant Agriculture Engineer and then in the Cadre of Agriculture Engineer, hence, the respondents be directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of said Assured Career Progression Scheme along with all the consequential benefits including revision of pay scale and revision of the pensionary benefits.
2.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein, the respondents have given the detail in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections with regard to the grant of benefit to the petitioner in the Cadre of Assistant Agriculture Engineer as well as Agriculture Engineer with regard to the claim of benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme after completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service. The respondents have stated following in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections :-
!" #$
% &
' ( ) &&*"
"*% ) &
) $#
$&
+ , - * ( "
$ % & .*% )
+#$ # ./ , ) &
&
&
+#$ # . / , )
₹ ₹ #$
- !$ % &
'.
'
.
)
#) &
₹
)
% )$ % &
.
₹ 1'
.
&
#$
% &
-
1"
2 % # ) &
1
1(
& % & & * % &
+#$ # ,3 3.
The said averments have gone unrebutted and there is no replication at the hands of the petitioner.
4.
*
!
+
#
, ! ! Assured Career Progression Scheme or not. As per the reply filed, the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in the Cadre of Assistant Agriculture Engineer as well as in the Cadre of Agriculture Engineer. The benefits of 04 years Assured Career Progression Scheme in the Cadre of Assistant Agriculture Engineer as well as Agriculture Engineer have been granted and as, the petitioner got promotion as Agriculture Engineer on 20.07.1994 and before completion of 09 years service on the post of Agriculture Engineer, the petitioner got voluntarily retirement same was not to be granted. The averments made in the reply clearly show that the
benefit admissible to the petitioner have already been granted to him, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition. 6.
Dismissed.
7.
1/,2##$ (3 (( 2
$ 2.
56
$ 57