Ordering that a highly regarded school teacher be considered for financial advancement under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme, the Delhi High Court has said that the requirement of having a higher degree in the same subject under the scheme applies only to language teachers, not only. science teachers.
The order, dated December 3, 2024, comes more than a decade after the school teacher petitioned the Delhi High Court in 2012 seeking direction to the Air Force Bal Bharti School, where he was a Chemistry teacher, to grant him benefits under the Air Force Bal Bharti School. ACP and MACP (Modified ACP) plans with arrears and interest.
The petitioner – Rama Gopalakrishnan – was appointed as a Graduate Trained Teacher (TGT) by the school on July 22, 1974.
The Ministry of Manpower and Training launched the ACP scheme on August 9, 1999, following which Gopalakrishnan demanded an increase in the school’s funding in the scale of Graduate Teacher (History).
However, the school, in January 2012, reported that Gopalakrishnan did not have the required qualifications, and that he was instead being considered under the MACP program.
Gopalakrishnan had an undergraduate degree in Chemistry and a post-graduate degree in History and a B.Ed. The school had refused to give him an ACP on the grounds that he had not graduated from the science course, namely Chemistry that he was teaching. Gopalakrishnan argued before the court that according to the law, the requirement of having a higher degree in the same subject applies only to language teachers and not to science teachers, therefore he is entitled to the promotion of ACP as he fulfills the criteria for promotion in the school. post of PGT (History).
The school also argued that for its development under the MACP programme, the ‘Good’ benchmark applies to its income level but it does not meet the benchmark as three out of five of its Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are rated ‘average’. .
Ruling in favor of the petitioner, Justice Singh ordered that Gopalakrishnan’s case be considered for advance payment under the ACP scheme from the date of his eligibility, ie, August 9, 1999. He also ordered that he be legal. he spoke about the ACR sections, the court added that his case “will be considered for granting a second MACP under the MACP program after considering the representation of respect to the ACRs in the calculation.”
Ordering that he be given benefits within four months, the court said, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found fit to improve financially, he will be given the same and released. Since the applicant has received more money, in the event that he receives a financial enhancement, it will be reviewed in his retirement benefits.”
Discover the Benefits of Our Subscription!
Stay informed with access to award-winning journalism.
Avoid misinformation with reliable, accurate reporting.
Make smart decisions with important details.
Choose your subscription package