Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules ACP Benefits Must Count From Date of Initial Appointment; Firemen Not to Suffer for Employer’s Delay in Training
Case Name: Rajbir Singh and Others v. Haryana Power Corporation Ltd. and Others
Date of Decision: 20 January 2026
Citation: RSA-468-2006
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the regular second appeal and held that for the purpose of grant of the first Assured Career Progression (ACP), the qualifying period of ten years’ regular service must be counted from the date of initial regular appointment and not from the date of completion of mandatory training or grant of pay scale, where the delay in conducting such training is attributable to the employer. The Court held that employees cannot be penalised for the failure of the employer to arrange training within time.
Summary: The appellants were appointed as regular Firemen in the years 1988 and 1989 after due selection. As per the appointment terms, the regular pay scale attached to the post of Fireman was to be granted after successful completion of three months’ training from a recognised Fire Service Training Centre. Despite repeated requests, the respondent-Corporation failed to arrange the mandatory training, compelling the appellants to approach the High Court by way of a writ petition. Pursuant to directions issued by the Court, the training was eventually conducted in September–October 1991.
After completion of training, the Fireman pay scale was granted with effect from 01.01.1992. Subsequently, when the appellants became eligible for the first ACP under the applicable scheme, the Corporation counted the qualifying ten-year period from 01.01.1992 instead of from the dates of their initial appointments in 1988–1989. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a civil suit seeking declaration and consequential relief. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decree.
Before the High Court, the central issue was whether the qualifying service for ACP should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment or from the date of regular pay scale after training. Examining the ACP Rules and the appointment conditions, the Court noted that “regular satisfactory service” under the ACP Scheme refers to continuous service commencing from the date of regular recruitment through prescribed procedure.
The Court held that although the grant of regular pay scale was linked to completion of training, the responsibility to arrange such training rested solely with the employer. Since the delay in training was entirely attributable to the respondent-Corporation, the appellants could not be made to suffer adverse financial consequences. The Court found that the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate this crucial aspect and wrongly denied the ACP benefit from the correct date.
Decision: The regular second appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, were set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, were affirmed. The appellants were held entitled to counting of their qualifying service for ACP from the date of initial appointment.