Court Holds No Automatic Promotion from Dai to ANM Without Specific Rules; Delay of 18 Years Bars Petitioner's Claim
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, through Justice Ranjan Sharma, on September 1, 2026, dismissed the writ petition filed by Leela Devi challenging the denial of increment benefits and counting of past service for career progression under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The petitioner, initially appointed as a Dai (midwife) in 1986, pursued training as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) and was later appointed as ANM by direct recruitment in 2000. She claimed that her appointment as ANM should be treated as a promotion entitling her to increment benefits under Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 (1)(a)(i) and requested counting of her Dai service towards proficiency step-up benefits under ACPS.
The Court thoroughly examined the facts and relevant statutory provisions, including the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the conditions of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to the petitioner before her ANM training. The NOC explicitly stated that the petitioner would have no claim for appointment on a higher post or higher pay scale after training. The Court noted that the petitioner accepted the direct recruitment appointment as a fresh candidate without protest.
Justice Sharma held that the claim for increment under FR-22 (1)(a)(i) was not tenable in the absence of an express provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules allowing automatic promotion or counting of Dai service towards ANM. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any statutory entitlement or precedent of similar promotions. Further, the ACPS benefits require service in the same post or cadre, and service on the post of Dai could not be clubbed with ANM service for proficiency step-up benefits. The petitioner had already received three ACPS benefits, barring additional claims.
The Court also highlighted the significant delay of 18 years in asserting these claims after joining as ANM and found the delay and laches to be a bar to the petitioner's case, relying on binding Supreme Court precedents that deny belated claims affecting service benefits.
Lastly, the Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on judgments cited, clarifying that those cases were distinguishable and did not apply to the facts here, particularly regarding the absence of statutory support for the claims and the constitutional mandate of fair public employment under Articles 14 and 16.
The writ petition was dismissed with parties directed to bear their own costs.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Claim for increment and proficiency step-up benefits not tenable in absence of specific provisions in the rules or evidence of entitlement. Delay and laches of 18 years render claims impermissible.
Statutory provision(s):
Fundamental Rules 22 (1)(a)(i), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) dated 15.12.1998 and 09.08.2012, Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947
Leela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972131
