Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The plea raised in OA No.183/2011, was that the time spent as ad hoc be also counted for grant of ACP/MACP benefit. The Tribunal decided OA No.183/2011, by giving direction to respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, respondents took this ad-hoc period also into account and released the ACP/MACP benefits to Shri Phool Singh. Thus, while OA No.183/2011 was not decided on merit and respondents were directed to take decision, they in turn granted the benefit sought for.

6. The applicant is aggrieved at this rejection and preferred the instant OA, challenging the order dated 28.05.2013 and 26.08.2013 issued by respondents.

7. The respondents relied upon a recent judgment in OA No.200/2014 dated 20.09.2018 (Adarsh Kumar Saxena vs. UOI and Ors.). The relevant observations made by the Tribunal, in the said decision, are reproduced below:-

"10. Now we examine the question raised in the present OA, i.e., whether the service rendered by an employee on casual/temporary/daily wage/ad hoc basis prior to the date of his regular appointment can be counted for the purpose of calculation of the required number of years for granting the financial benefits under the ACP/MACP Schemes. The said question is not a res integra and a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in WPCT No.396/2014 dated 06.07.2015 titled as Mr. Babu Yohanan Vs. The Union of India and Others (2015 SCC OnLine Cal 2009), after considering various decisions of this Tribunal and also of other decisions of the same High Court including the decision in Sunity Chakraborty Vs. Union of India WPCT 497/2013 dated 11.03.2014 and other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, categorically held that the ad hoc service rendered prior to the regular appointment cannot be taken into consideration for grant of benefit under ACP Scheme. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.424/2014 order dated 15.11.2017 in Om Pal Singh Malik and Others Vs. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi and Others, also taken a similar view and that the ACP/MACP Schemes themselves envisaged that the benefits thereunder shall be granted to the employees on consideration of their regular service and that any casual/contractual/temporary/ ad-hoc service shall not be reckoned for the purpose of counting the required periods under the ACP/MACP Schemes.
11. Granting of ACP/MACP to one Shri Phool Singh by the respondents by counting the service rendered by him on temporary/ad hoc basis prior to his regular appointment as Store Keeper- cum-Clerk, is against the ACP/MACP Schemes itself and also in violation of law, and hence cannot be a ground for granting of identical benefit to the applicant as there can be no negative equality (See State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 69). The decision in D.K. Gupta (OA No.230/2014 supra) is also not helpful to the applicant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Babu Yohanan (supra).

12. Moreover, this question has also been considered by the Hon'ble High Court in Sudesh Kumari Sareen v. Union of India and Ors. (WP(C) No.4379/2010 decided on 03.02.2011), and it has been held that ad hoc service cannot be counted for grant of ACP/MACP benefits. The relevant part of this judgment is reproduced below:-

"10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the ACP Scheme especially para 2, employees such as casual employees (including those with temporary status), substitutes, ad-hoc and contract employees are categorically excluded for qualifying for benefits under the aforesaid scheme.