![\"Employee](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-47529300,imgsize-110164,width-400,height-225,resizemode-75\/47529300.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nRaipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya teacher seeking senior scale\/time-bound financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme after repeatedly declining promotions, holding that the ACP\/time-bound advancement scheme is intended to address stagnation where no promotional avenue is available, and cannot be invoked by an employee who voluntarily foregoes available promotions and still seeks financial advancement.A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput on June 22 upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal\u2019s February 24, 2025 order rejecting the claim. The petitioner, a post graduate teacher, contended she had completed over 24 years of unblemished service and argued that denial of ACP benefits due to non-joining of a promotional post was arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.The HC observed that the ACP\/time-bound advancement scheme is intended to address stagnation where no promotional avenue is available, and cannot be invoked by an employee who voluntarily foregoes available promotions and still seeks financial advancement. The Bench noted it was undisputed that the petitioner was offered promotions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2010, and declined each time.Relying on a Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti clarification dated April 28, 2010, the court recorded that refusal of promotion offered before completion of the prescribed period disentitles an employee from senior scale on completion of qualifying service. The court noted the clarification was neither challenged nor shown to be contrary to any statutory provision.Citing the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Union of India v. Manju Arora (2022) 2 SCC 151, the High Court reiterated that when an employee refuses a regular promotion, it is not a case of lack of promotional opportunities but a personal choice, and such an employee is not entitled to claim financial upgradation for \u201cstagnation.\u201d The Bench also noted the Supreme Court\u2019s concern that refusals of promotion can create administrative difficulties in manning higher posts.On the allegation of discrimination, the High Court accepted the respondents\u2019 explanation that certain benefits in other regions were granted before the 2010 clarification and that corrective action, including withdrawal of wrongly extended benefits, had been taken later. The court also observed that Article 14 does not permit \u201cnegative equality,\u201d and an incorrect benefit given elsewhere cannot be claimed contrary to governing rules.The Bench held there was no perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error in the tribunal\u2019s decision warranting interference under Article 226, and dismissed the petition. The court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh ACP application to be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.<\/div>\n