Summary
The Court distinguished refusal of regular promotion from refusal of a conditional officiating promotion under the 1999 Assured Career Progression Scheme. Employees who declined regular vacancy-based promotion before becoming entitled to financial upgradation could not claim stagnation caused by lack of promotional avenues. By contrast, refusing an officiating promotion expressly subject to reversion did not disqualify the other two employees. The Union’s first set of appeals was allowed and its second set dismissed, with consequential relief for the eligible retired employees directed within three months.
Issues
- Whether refusal of regular promotion before ACP eligibility defeated financial upgradation.
- Whether refusal of conditional officiating promotion had the same effect.
Provisions considered
- Conditions 5.1 and 10; clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 18 July 2001, Assured Career Progression Scheme, Office Memorandum dated 9 August 1999The scheme addressed genuine stagnation; pre-eligibility refusal of regular promotion defeated the claim, while the conditional officiating offers were distinguished. (¶¶ 10-16, 19)
Held
- The ACP Scheme was intended to relieve genuine stagnation from inadequate promotional avenues. An employee who declined an offered regular promotion before entitlement to financial upgradation voluntarily remained in the existing grade and could not invoke that purpose to claim ACP benefits. (¶¶ 10, 13-16)
- Condition 10 did not justify confining the consequence of the earlier refusal to the second upgradation. Condition 5.1 and the scheme’s purpose, reinforced by the 2001 clarification, governed the employees who had repeatedly refused regular promotion before grant of ACP. (¶¶ 11, 14-18)
- The other two employees had only been offered conditional officiating promotion, expressly subject to reversion when senior officers returned or for administrative reasons. Refusal of that temporary arrangement was not refusal of regular promotion and did not disentitle them to ACP benefits. (¶¶ 8, 19)
- The regular-promotion appeals were allowed, while the officiating-promotion appeals were dismissed. Consequential benefits, if outstanding, were to be provided to the two eligible retired employees within three months. (¶ 20-21)
Result
Union’s appeals 7027-7028/2009 allowed; appeals 7150-7151/2009 dismissed; consequential relief for the two eligible employees directed within three months; no costs.