Chhattisgarh HC: Teacher Who Refused Promotion Cannot Claim ACP Senior Scale

Dismissing a Navodaya Vidyalaya teacher's plea, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that voluntarily declining promotion four times bars a claim to time-bound financial upgradation.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has dismissed a writ petition filed by Samarpita Paul, a Post Graduate Teacher at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kurud, challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that refused her claim for senior scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput held that an employee who repeatedly declines an offered promotion cannot later claim the time-bound financial upgradation meant for those who suffered stagnation for reasons beyond their control. The bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Sahu, relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Manju Arora, (2022) 2 SCC 151, and invoked the doctrine of approbate and reprobate to reject the petitioner's plea of parity and discrimination.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Paul was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in October 1992 and was later promoted to a higher post, but did not join owing to what her counsel described as compelling personal circumstances. She last declined a promotional opportunity in 2010. Having rendered over 24 years of what her counsel called unblemished service with no adverse remark on record, she sought financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of 12 and 24 years of service.

Her claim was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, sitting at Bilaspur, in Original Application No. 855 of 2018, by order dated 24 February 2025. She approached the High Court under Article 226, arguing that the Tribunal failed to appreciate her case in its correct perspective and that the denial of senior scale solely because she did not join the promotional post was arbitrary.

Her counsel, Mr. Sudeep Verma, argued that other similarly placed employees who had also declined promotions were nonetheless granted senior scale, and that withholding the same benefit from the petitioner amounted to hostile discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The ACP Scheme and the Question of Voluntary Refusal

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, told the bench that Paul had been offered promotion on four separate occasions — in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2010 — and declined each time. He relied on a clarification issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 28 April 2010, which stated that where a teacher is offered financial upgradation through promotion before completing 12 years of service and refuses it, the teacher shall not be entitled to senior scale on completion of 12 years.

The bench framed the issue narrowly: whether an employee who voluntarily refused promotion could still claim senior scale or time-bound financial upgradation as a matter of right. It observed that the object of the ACP scheme is to address stagnation where no promotional avenue exists, not to reward an employee who forgoes available opportunities and then seeks the same financial advancement.

The court noted that the 2010 clarification had never been challenged by the petitioner, nor shown to be contrary to any statutory provision. Since it was undisputed that Paul had been offered promotion on four occasions and declined each time, the clarification applied squarely to her case.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench leaned heavily on Manju Arora, where the Supreme Court had held that an employee who refuses an offered regular promotion before becoming entitled to financial upgradation cannot later claim that upgradation merely because of subsequent stagnation. The Supreme Court had reasoned that such refusal is not a case of absent promotional opportunity but of an employee choosing, for personal reasons, to forfeit an opportunity that was in fact offered.

Quoting the Supreme Court's invocation of the doctrine of “approbate and reprobate”, traced to Lissenden v. CAV Bosch Ltd., the bench reiterated that an employee cannot adopt one choice and later assert the other once it becomes convenient. Applying this reasoning, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the Tribunal's finding — that Paul was not entitled to senior scale given her repeated refusals — was based on relevant material and did not suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226.

The bench also addressed a subsidiary argument: that even after her last refusal in 2010, Paul had gone on to complete 12 years of service and should have been considered afresh under the ACP Scheme. The court noted that her Original Application before the Tribunal was filed in 2018, and on that date she had not yet completed 12 years since her 2010 refusal. The Tribunal, examining the grievance as it stood in 2018, had dismissed the claim on that basis, and the High Court found no error in that assessment.

The Discrimination Plea and the Withdrawal at Surajpur

On the plea of hostile discrimination, the respondents explained that the instances cited by the petitioner — teachers in the Hyderabad Region who received senior scale despite declining promotion — predated the 28 April 2010 clarification. Once the clarification came into force, even benefits already extended were corrected: the senior scale granted to a teacher at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Surajpur, was withdrawn by an order dated 18 December 2015.

The bench held that this corrective withdrawal demonstrated the absence of any discriminatory intent. It observed that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, and that an incorrect benefit extended to one employee cannot found a claim by another employee for the same benefit contrary to the governing rules.

Order

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal had not committed any error in rejecting Paul's claim for senior scale or time-bound pay scale, and that its findings did not warrant interference under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

The bench, however, granted the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh application seeking ACP benefits, to be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.