Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Sunity Chakraborty filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench being OA no. 449 of 2012, whereas Pratima Giri filed OA no. 448 of 2012 as they were aggrieved by the denial of the financial upgradation payable to them under the MACP Scheme.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications on 21st June, 2013 by concluding that under the MACP Scheme only regular service of an employee was to be reckoned for the purposes of granting benefits under the Scheme. The Tribunal was of the view that since the petitioners had not rendered 30 years of service as regular employees, they were not entitled to the benefits of the MACP Scheme. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the aforesaid Scheme.

7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the petitioners preferred review petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed those review petitions by common order on 29th August, 2013.

8. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 21st June, 2013 and 29th August, 2013 the petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ petitions.

9. Mr. Gokul Chandra Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the MACP Scheme and the 3rd financial upgradation because their ad hoc period of uninterrupted service was followed immediately by regularisation. He pointed out that the petitioners were regularised in service pursuant to the approval of the Railway Service Commission. He then submitted that the respondents had denied the petitioners the benefits of the Scheme by excluding the ad hoc period of service unjustifiably, when they had included this period for the purposes of payment of leave encashment, yearly increment, pension and other dues. He also pointed out that the GPF subscription was recovered from the petitioners even during their ad hoc period of service. He submitted that under Clause 9 of the MACP Scheme which defines "Regular service" for the purposes of the Scheme, ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners who were appointed as duly trained nurses cannot be excluded. The learned Counsel then pointed out the clarificatory note issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) dated 9th September, 2010 under which, according to the learned Counsel, the Government has clarified that benefits of the MACP Scheme would be available from the date of actual joining of the post in the entry grade, and not from the date of regular service / approved service. He urged, therefore, that their can be no doubt now that as per the clarificatory note the petitioners would be entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation as they have completed 30 years of service including the period spent as ad hoc employees. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Thiru A Balakrishnan and Another -vs.- Government of T. N. and Others reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 108 and of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. -vs.- Karan Anant Purao reported in 2013 Labour Industrial Cases 4539. Mr. Chakraborty has also relied on the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka and Others -vs.- C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 to fortify his submission that all persons similarly situated should be treated equally, irrespective of the fact that only one person has approached the Court. His submission was that since the Central Government had extended the MACP Scheme by including ad hoc period in respect of employees in the Canteen Stores Department, Union of India, the same benefit should be extended to the petitioners.

13. A bare perusal of this Clause indicates that only such service which is rendered on an ad hoc or contractual basis on pre-appointment training, before regular appointment shall not be taken into reckoning for extending the benefits of the scheme. Thus, if an employee is recruited on an ad hoc basis and undergoes training before he is absorbed as a regular employee, the period of service rendered by him as an ad hoc employee cannot be included for the purposes of extending the benefits under the Scheme. However, if an employee has acquired the training requisite for the job that he is recruited for, albeit on an ad hoc basis, prior to his appointment, that period of ad hoc service must be included for payment of the benefits of the Scheme. The Scheme which is envisaged by the Railway Board is para materia with the MACP Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees which has been issued on 9th September, 2010 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training). In fact Clause 9 in the Scheme applicable to the Central Government Civilian Employees is identical to Clause 9 of the MACP Scheme which is applicable to the railway employees.

20. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the applications of the petitioners. A correct interpretation of Clause 9 of the Scheme would entitle the petitioners to the benefits of the MACP Scheme as both of them have completed more than 30 years of service in employment from the date they had been appointed as trained staff nurses but on an ad hoc basis. They would thus be entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation. The petitioners would also be entitled to all arrears of pay and allowances and other pensionary benefits consequent to the extension of the benefits of the MACP Scheme.