Voluntary Change of Cadre Breaks Continuity for ACP Benefits:
Commentary on Savita Guleria v. Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board (2025 HHC 23949)

Introduction

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Savita Guleria v. HPSSB (2025 HHC 23949) resolves an oft-recurring dispute about whether service rendered in one cadre can be clubbed with service in another, lower scale cadre for the purpose of securing the first financial up-gradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (“ACP Scheme”). The petitioner – originally a Steno-Typist in the Department of Town & Country Planning – voluntarily went on deputation to the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board (“HPSSSB”) as a Clerk, eventually seeking permanent absorption. Eight years after her initial appointment, she staked a claim for the first ACP benefit, counting her service in both cadres. The Court refused, holding that:

The judgment is significant for public servants in Himachal Pradesh (and potentially elsewhere) who elect to move to a different cadre carrying a dissimilar scale: such movement effectively “resets the clock” for ACP purposes.

Summary of the Judgment

• The petitioner completed roughly four years as Steno-Typist (₹3330-6200) and then shifted to HPSSSB as Clerk (₹3120-5160).
• She asserted that the combined eight years by 02.01.2003 entitled her to the first ACP step-up.
• HPSSSB rejected the claim, arguing that the ACP Scheme applies only on completion of eight years in the same cadre.
• The High Court upheld the Board’s stand, emphasizing:
  • Different cadres + different pay-scales = no continuity.
  • Clarifications relied on by the petitioner (Finance Dept. letter, MHA circular) did not apply because the scales were not identical and the test for “analogous posts” was unmet.
• Petition dismissed; no ACP benefits or seniority protection granted.

Analysis

Precedents & Administrative Authorities Cited

1. Finance Department Clarification dated 06-04-1990 (Clause 7)

This State circular says that service in different cadres can be clubbed for “Proficiency Step-Up” (the predecessor to ACP) only if the pay scales are the same/identical. Justice Vaidya treated this as the controlling clarification. Because the petitioner’s two scales (₹3330-6200 vs. ₹3120-5160) were not the same, the benefit could not be extended.

2. Ministry of Home Affairs Memorandum dated 07-03-1984 (Criteria for Analogous Posts)

This Union Government memorandum lists conditions for deciding when two posts are “analogous”—primarily for inter-departmental transfers under Central rules. The Court rejected its applicability for three reasons:

• It is a Central (not State) circular;
• The petitioner relied on only one of several cumulative conditions (“scale of pay is an extension of each other”); and
• For State employees, the decisive factor is nature of duties, on which no evidence was produced.

3. Past Litigation History

The earlier Administrative Tribunal order (OA 198/2006) and High Court transfer petition (CWP(T) 14452/2008) merely directed fresh consideration; they did not decide the merits, hence they were not treated as binding precedent.

Legal Reasoning

1. Cadre Specificity of ACP Scheme: The Court read the ACP Scheme as a cadre-specific financial progression. Its object is to reward stagnation within a cadre, not across cadres.
2. Identical Scale Requirement: Drawing from Clause 7 (1990 Finance circular), the Judge held that combining service is permitted only when the two cadres not only perform similar duties but also carry the same or identical pay scale.
3. Voluntary Movement = Conscious Choice: Because the petitioner voluntarily sought deputation and subsequent absorption, she accepted the lower scale and new cadre, thereby abandoning any accrued advantage for ACP purposes.
4. Lack of Evidence on Analogous Duties: The burden to prove similarity of duties lay on the petitioner. A “bald assertion”, without comparative duty charts or recruitment rules, was insufficient.

Impact on Future Jurisprudence & Service Law

The decision clarifies a grey area for State employees who frequently move on deputation or absorption:

• Resetting of Stagnation Clock: After voluntary change to a cadre with a different scale, the ACP clock restarts from zero.
• Emphasis on Pay-Scale Parity: Identical pay scales are now a sine qua non for aggregating service across cadres—merely similar duties are not enough.
• Burden of Proof: Employees must place cogent evidence (service rules, duty comparison, scale parity) to show analogy; otherwise, their claim will fail at threshold.
• Administrative Practices: Personnel departments may draft new guidelines warning employees about ACP consequences before granting absorption.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme

A financial benefits scheme designed to combat “stagnation” where employees have limited promotional avenues. Typically, after 8/16/24 years (depending on the State), an employee receives a pay-scale up-gradation even without an actual promotion.

Cadre

A cadre is a group of posts in a service that are treated as one unit for purposes of seniority, promotion, and pay. Switching cadres is effectively joining a different service line.

Analogous Post

An “analogous” post is one that is equivalent for transfer purposes, usually requiring parity in: (1) pay scale, (2) duties & responsibilities, and (3) level in the hierarchy.

Deputation vs. Absorption

• Deputation: Temporary transfer to another department; lien retained in the parent cadre.
• Absorption: Permanent transfer; the employee becomes part of the borrowing department’s cadre, losing the previous lien.

Conclusion

Savita Guleria cements an important principle in Himachal Pradesh service law: once an employee voluntarily moves to a different cadre with a different pay scale, her past service cannot be counted for ACP benefits, unless the two scales are identical. The ruling underscores the importance of informed decision-making when officers consider deputation or absorption, and it provides a clear, objective test (pay-scale identity) for future disputes. In the broader context, the judgment strikes a balance between protecting the State from unintended financial liabilities and ensuring that the ACP Scheme remains a remedy for in-cadre stagnation rather than a windfall for cross-cadre movers. Public servants and administrators alike must now heed the “scale parity” rule before calculating service length for ACP benefits.