High Court of Delhi

Union of India and Ors. vs. Om Prakash and Ors.

MANU/DE/2082/2023

27.03.2023

Service

Date of absorption would be the date from which the regular service for the purpose of MACP shall be determined

The challenge in present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application ('O.A.') and directed the Petitioners to grant the Respondents the second ACP benefits from due dates on notional basis and revise their pension payment order and pay the pension accordingly. The arrears have been limited to the last three years i.e., w.e.f. January 01, 2017 onwards without any interest.

The short issue which arises for consideration is whether the Respondents are entitled to grant of second ACP on completion of 24 years of service from the date of initial appointment.

Regular service for the purpose of MACP shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-employment basis. In other words, the date of absorption would be the date from which the regular service for the purpose of MACP shall be determined.

In view of the clause 9 of Annexure-1 of OM dated May 19, 2008, the regular service of the respondents was counted w.e.f. January 8/10, 1998 (date of transfer/absorption) on completion of ten years of service from that date and were granted the benefits under the MACP Scheme.

The service put in by them prior to 1998 was not considered for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme. It may be stated that the vires of Clause 9 of the OM dated May 19, 2009, had not been challenged. So, the issue has to be decided from the perspective of Clause 9. The intent behind Clause 9 is the Respondents having become surplus in LPU, were absorbed in PLU, which is akin to afresh appointment and any future benefits have to be granted by counting service from the date of absorption.

The Tribunal has not considered the effect of clause 9 while giving the directions in the manner it did in the impugned order. It follows the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is a perverse finding. The direction of the Tribunal for grant of second ACP to the respondents could not have been granted. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Petition allowed.

Tags : ACP Benefit Legality

Share :