Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Sunday, 02 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2022-01-03 partly_allowed

Union of India & Ors vs Manju Arora & Anr

Bench: 2 — Hrishikesh Roy

In Brief

The Union of India appealed against a High Court decision restoring Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits to three Central Government employees who had refused regular promotion. The Supreme Court held that financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme is available only to employees who cannot obtain regular promotion during prescribed service intervals. Employees Manju Arora and Suman Lata Bhatia, who were offered but rejected regular promotion on personal grounds, cannot claim genuine stagnation and are disentitled to ACP benefits. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevents them from simultaneously rejecting promotion and claiming its financial alternative. However, employees Kanta Suri and Veena Arora, offered only conditional/officiating promotions subject to reversion, retain ACP eligibility as they did not exercise a genuine choice. The appeals were partly allowed and partly dismissed accordingly.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Service Law Administrative Law Employment Benefits Central Government Employees

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login