We find that benefit of ACP was given to petitioner in view of service conditions to avoid stagnation. After the petitioner declined promotion, respondents rightly ordered its withdrawal. This withdrawal was not given effect to immediately though order to that effect was passed on 18.12.2006. Petitioner has retired almost 11 years thereafter. After retirement, that order is sought to be given effect to. Here provisions of Section 47(2) of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 also need to be kept in mind. Petitioner could not function on promotional post because of his disability. That disability could not have been used to deny him at least the benefit of ACP. Recovery as proposed is, therefore, unsustainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Writ Petition No. 7133 of 2017
Decided On: 25.09.2018
Gulab Ganpatrao Hole Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Amravati and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Dharmadhikari and M.G. Giratkar, JJ.
Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 209
