ACP benefits cannot be denied for employer-caused delay, and recovery of excess payment was set aside.

An employee was held entitled to first and second ACP benefits from the claimed earlier dates because the departmental examination was not held in time due to the employer's delay, and that default could not be used to deny the benefit. The employee cleared the examination at the first available opportunity, so the anti-stagnation scheme had to operate in his favour. Recovery of alleged excess payment made before 29.6.2003 was also found unsustainable, since it depended on the same wrongful denial and recovery from an employee retired by then was impermissible. The ACP entitlement was restored and the recovery direction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to first and second ACP benefits from the earlier dates notwithstanding the delay in holding the departmental examination. (ii) Whether recovery of the alleged excess payment drawn by the appellant prior to 29.6.2003 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to first and second ACP benefits from the earlier dates notwithstanding the delay in holding the departmental examination.

Analysis: The ACP scheme was an anti-stagnation measure, but the appellant could not be denied its benefit merely because the respondents did not conduct the departmental examination in time. The requirement of passing the examination could not be enforced to the appellant's prejudice when the delay was entirely attributable to the employer. The appellant cleared the examination in the first available attempt, and the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own default applied.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the first and second ACP benefits from the dates claimed and not merely from 29.6.2003.

Issue (ii): Whether recovery of the alleged excess payment drawn by the appellant prior to 29.6.2003 was sustainable.

Analysis: Once the denial of ACP from the earlier dates was held to be unjustified, the basis for recovery failed. Recovery was also impermissible in the light of the settled principle against recovering amounts paid due to the employer's own lapse, particularly where the employee had already retired.

Conclusion: The recovery of the alleged excess payment was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant's entitlement to ACP benefits was restored from the earlier dates, while the recovery direction was set aside; the directions regarding Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and the revised pay benefit were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee cannot be denied service benefits or burdened with recovery when the employer's own failure to perform a statutory or procedural duty caused the delay or overpayment.

---