Chandigarh April 27:
Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab to look into the cases of 26 doctors who had been given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, despite having average annual confidential reports (ACRs). The High Court asked the State Government to complete the exercise "within a period of two months".
Taking up the public interest litigation by one Sham Lal Saini, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Surya Kant stated, "This PIL has been filed seeking interference of the court with the actions of the State of Punjab in conferring the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme to a large number of persons who, according to the petitioner, were not entitled to such benefit."
Earlier also, the State Government had reviewed 352 cases where benefits of the scheme were granted despite the fact that they were not entitlement for the same. The petitioner, in his petition, stated that the benefit under the ACP Scheme "is to be granted only on the basis of good Annual Confidential Report. But, in the present case, by an order dated August 6, 2000, average and satisfactory ACRs have been directed to be treated as good ACRs."
Taking on record the assertions by AAG Khosla that the situation has been corrected except that the benefits already drawn are not being recovered, the Bench want the State not to recover the monetary benefits already drawn by the concerned persons "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case".
Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab to look into the cases of 26 doctors who had been given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, despite having average annual confidential reports (ACRs). The High Court asked the State Government to complete the exercise "within a period of two months".
Taking up the public interest litigation by one Sham Lal Saini, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Surya Kant stated, "This PIL has been filed seeking interference of the court with the actions of the State of Punjab in conferring the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme to a large number of persons who, according to the petitioner, were not entitled to such benefit."
Earlier also, the State Government had reviewed 352 cases where benefits of the scheme were granted despite the fact that they were not entitlement for the same. The petitioner, in his petition, stated that the benefit under the ACP Scheme "is to be granted only on the basis of good Annual Confidential Report. But, in the present case, by an order dated August 6, 2000, average and satisfactory ACRs have been directed to be treated as good ACRs."
Taking on record the assertions by AAG Khosla that the situation has been corrected except that the benefits already drawn are not being recovered, the Bench want the State not to recover the monetary benefits already drawn by the concerned persons "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case".
