Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 i)     A.K. Bindal vs. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163

      ii)    State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Baban Sharma (order dated 22.03.2023
             in LPA No. 160 of 2018, Patna High Court)

iii) O.M. No. 35034/3/2008/Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009 issued by DoPT Government of India notifying MACP Scheme, clause 10- 'Past Service', Annexure-1.

12. The learned counsel then submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not an employee of the State Government before 26.11.2014 and therefore, cannot claim any ACP/MACP benefit from the State Government. This fact is clear he submits, from the representations addressed to the MTDC dated 29.06.2022, 22.11.2022 and 07.12.2022, where ACP benefits was sought from the MTDC and not from the State Government, which shows that the petitioner admitted and understood her legal position, and it was only on the rejection of her claim by the MTDC, that she filed a representation dated 06.02.2023, requesting for ACP from the State respondents for the first time. The MTDC rejection letter dated 2025:MLHC:773 19.12.2022, the learned counsel submits, is solely based on the fact that as the petitioner having been granted an increment of Rs. 460/- on 01.11.2010, hence ACP could not be granted to her and it is not that the MTDC took the stand that the petitioner had no claim over ACP benefits, as she had been absorbed by the State Government.

13. The learned counsel has then contended that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches, as she has approached this Court only in the year 2023, when admittedly the cause of action or the claim of ACP had arisen in the year 2003 and 2013 itself. The petitioner therefore, he submits is entitled for counting of her past services in MTDC only for the purposes of pension, and her past services in MTDC, have been specifically excluded for being counted for grant of any ACP/MACP benefits by a Policy decision of the State Government which is universally applicable to all its employees. The petitioner's claim for ACP/MACP prior to 26.11.2014 he contends, lies with the MTDC and her eligibility is to be decided by that organization as per the Scheme. He lastly submits that there is no legal right in favour of the petitioner to institute the present writ petition to seek the reliefs prayed for against the State respondents Nos. 1 to 5, which are without any basis in law and in fact.

[emphasis supplied]

25. What can be gleaned from the above quoted judgment is that employees cannot claim a vested right to benefits under an old ACP Scheme once it was replaced by the MACP Scheme even if the new Scheme was applied retrospectively, and that eligibility did not guarantee entitlement as the Scheme was merely an incentive based policy, rather than a statutory right. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner on retrospective entitlement i.e. the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Balbir Singh Turn & 2025:MLHC:773 Ors. (supra) will have no application and is on a different footing, as in the instant case, the grant of ACP/MACP is not part of the pay structure in the service of the writ petitioner.

26. Much has also been made as to whether the alleged deprivation of the benefit of the ACP Scheme to the petitioner would constitute a continuing wrong and as such would not be hit by delay and laches and in this regard, both sides have tendered their arguments. This Court has perused the judgments cited by the writ petitioner especially the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy with a rider that the reopening of the case should not affect the settled rights of said parties and for example should only relate to payment or fixation of pay or pension. In the considered view of this Court, in the instant case the ACP/MACP Schemes not being linked to any pay structure being only an incentive, and the entitlement to pension of the petitioner having been reckoned cumulatively taking into account her past services in MTDC also, as allowed by this Court by order dated 13.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 101 of 2019, the writ petition seeking benefit under the ACP Scheme is also hit by delay and laches, as no injury persists.