IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5995 OF 2004

Bindu Sehgal  …Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. This  appeal  by  special  leave  calls  in  question  the  

correctness of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi  

whereby C.W.P. No.586 of 2001 filed by the appellant for a  

writ of mandamus directing grant of financial upgradation to  

her in terms of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) has  

been dismissed.

2. Pursuant  to  an  advertisement  issued  by  the  Union  

Public Service Commission inviting applications from eligible  

candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Hindi Officer  

in  the  Border  Road  Development  Board,  under  the  

Department of Surface Transport, Ministry of Transport, the  

appellant was selected and appointed against the said post  

in September, 1986, and confirmed against the same w.e.f.  

23rd October,  1988.  The  appellant’s  case  is  that  persons  

similarly  situated  and  possessing  similar  educational  

qualifications  as  the  appellant  who  had  been  recruited  

through  the  U.P.S.C.  in  the  year  1986  and  allocated  to  

Central  Secretariat  Official  Language  Service  had  been  

promoted as Senior Hindi  Officers/Varisth Hindi Adhikharis  

after  putting in a service  of  just  about  8 years.  Some of  

them had even been promoted to the post of Joint Director  

while the appellant continued to stagnate as a Hindi Officer  

in her department. A representation made by the appellant  

for grant of promotion appears to have been considered in  

consultation with the Ministry of Defence (Finance), but the  

2

appellant was advised to await the recommendations of the  

Fifth  Central  Pay  Commission.  A  work  study  was  also  

ordered although no such study, according to the appellant,  

was conducted.  

3. The  appellant’s  further  case  is  that  even  when the  

Parliamentary  Committee  on  Official  language  and  the  

Central  Hindi  Implementation  Committee  headed  by  the  

Prime Minister  have  time and again  recommended that  a  

separate cadre be formed for providing promotional avenues  

to Hindi  Officers  working in  subordinate  offices  in  various  

Ministries  and  undertakings  and  although  the  said  

recommendations were accepted with the modification that  

cadres be formed wherever the same were feasible yet the  

same were ignored by the Border Road Organization, who  

remained content with the introduction of what is known as  

ACP  Scheme.  The  scheme,  according  to  the  appellant,  

envisages  two  financial  upgradations  the  first  falling  due  

after  completion  of  12  and  the  second  after  24  years  of  

regular  service  in  cases  of  acute  stagnation.  It  is  not  in  

3

dispute that the scheme was made applicable in the case of  

directly recruited “B” Group Hindi Officers also.   

4. Pursuant  to  the  introduction  of  the  scheme  

aforementioned,  the  appellant  submitted  three  

representations  seeking  financial  upgradation  to  the  pay  

scale of Rs.10000-15200 in terms of the existing hierarchy  

prevailing in the Ministry of Defence and in the Department  

of  Official  Language  (Ministry  of  Home  Affairs).  These  

representations  were  considered  but  instead  of  granting,  

what according to the appellant was legitimately due to her  

under the scheme, she was given the pay scale of Rs.8000-

13500 admissible  to those working as Assistant  Executive  

Engineers in the BRO.  

5. Aggrieved by denial of the higher grade of Rs.10000-

15200  being  enjoyed  by  similarly  situated  Hindi  Officers  

working in other Departments, the appellant approached the  

High Court for redressal of her grievance, which writ petition  

has  been dismissed  holding  that  the  grant  of  higher  pay  

4

scale of Rs.10000-15200 claimed by the appellant was likely  

to create anomalies in the departmental hierarchy.  The High  

Court  was  also  of  the  view  that  the  appellant  was  not  

entitled to the scale of pay admissible to senior officers of  

any particular Ministry or Department as that was not the  

intent  and  object  of  the  ACP  Scheme.  She  could  not,  

observed the High Court, be allowed to steal a march over  

persons placed in analogous pay scales in her department.   

6. Appearing  for  the  appellant  Mrs.  Shally  Bhasin  

Maheshwari,  strenuously  argued  that  the  High  Court  had  

failed to correctly appreciate the points urged on behalf of  

the appellant and the basis of her grievances. She drew our  

attention  to  the  scheme  and  the  clarifications  issued  in  

regard  to  the  same,  to  buttress  her  argument  that  the  

scheme  was  intended  to  give  relief  against  continued  

stagnation  on  account  of  the  absence  of  promotional  

avenues to the employees serving in different cadres. She  

also placed reliance upon the orders granting financial up-

gradation  to  officers  serving  in  other  Departments  and  

5

Ministries who are similarly situated and who possess similar  

qualifications as the appellant. Denial of a similar benefit to  

the  appellant  in  the  light  of  the  said  orders  argued  the  

learned counsel, was unfair and unjustified.

  7. Mr.  Ashok  Bhan,  learned counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents,  on  the  other  hand,  contended that  the post  

held  by  the  appellant  was  an  isolated  post  to  which  the  

financial up-gradation under the scheme was not applicable.  

Alternatively, he contended that the High Court was justified  

in declining the upgradation claimed by the appellant on the  

analogy  of  similar  upgradation  granted  to  other  officers  

working in other departments as any such upgradation to  

the appellant would result in an anomalous situation in as  

much as the appellant would then draw a higher salary than  

those serving in the Engineering Department of the BRO. He  

further  argued  that  the  appellant  was not  entitled  to  the  

benefit claimed by her as she had been granted the benefit  

of previous service as an L.D.C. apart from two promotions  

in that cadre.     

6

8. We  have  given  our  careful  consideration  to  the  

submissions made and perused the record. The order passed  

by the High Court does not, in our opinion, satisfactorily deal  

with  the  following  among  other  questions  that  arose  for  

consideration in the writ petition filed by the appellant:

1. Was the appellant directly recruited against  the post of  

Hindi Officer?   If so, could she be denied the benefit of  

the Assured Career Progression Scheme on account of the  

fact that she had, before her recruitment, held the post of  

a  Lower  Division  Clerk  and  had  been  given  two  

promotions or on account of the fact that she had been  

granted the benefit of her past service.  

2. In case the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme  

could  not  be  denied  to  the  appellant  for  the  reasons  

indicated in (1) above, was the post held by the appellant  

an isolated post within the meaning of the Assured Career  

Progression Scheme?  

7

3. If the answer to (2) above be in affirmative whether the  

appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the Assured  

Career Progression Scheme. If so, to what effect?  

4. Whether persons similarly situated as the appellant and  

holding  analogous  posts  in  other  Departments  were  

enjoying higher pay-scales. If so, whether the appellant  

could  claim  financial  upgradation  under  the  Assured  

Career  Progression  Scheme  by  reference  to  the  said  

higher pay-scales?  

5. Whether  any  analogous  grades  were  available  in  the  

Border Road Organization, and in particular whether the  

post  of  Assistant  Executive  Engineer  in  the  said  

Organization could be said to be analogous to the post  

held by the appellant?  

9. Answer to the above questions holds the key to the  

grant or refusal of the relief claimed by the appellant in the  

writ  petition  filed  by  her.  Since,  we  do  not  have  the  

advantage of the opinion of the High Court on the above  

questions we consider it unnecessary to examine or answer  

8

the same in the present appeal. The proper course, in our  

opinion, is to remit the matter back to the High Court for  

proper determination of the matters in controversy afresh.

10. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order  

under challenge and remit the matter back to the High Court  

for a fresh disposal in accordance with law keeping in view  

the observations made above.  The matter being fairly old,  

we request the High Court to dispose of the same as early  

as may be practicable.  No costs.

…….……………….…….……J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

.…………….………………….J. (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi April 8, 2010

9

1