Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The contentions of the applicant are that she is eligible for ACP/MACP benefits as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA 97/2004, wherein it was held that the services rendered in State Govt. should be reckoned for grant of ACP/MACP benefits and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the SLP filed too got dismissed. Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal granted similar relief in OA 720/2013 and this Bench also granted relief in OA 8/2017. Applicant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal in TA 1028/2009 to press her claim for considering the adhoc services rendered as Assistant for promotion to the post of Section Officer (Annexure A-XXII). There is one post of Section Officer vacant in Hyderabad Bench and several vacancies in different Benches of the Tribunal against which the applicant's request could be considered. Applicant also contends that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors v. Balbir Singh Turn in Civil Appeal Diary No.3744/2016, dt.08.12.2017, MACP being part of the pay structure, it shall be effective from 01.01.2006 and not from 01.09.2008.

II. However, when it comes to the aspect of regulating ACP/MACP benefits, as pleaded by the applicant at para 4(x) of the OA, the service rendered by the applicant as Typist in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P has to be considered. This issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA 97/2004, which was allowed on 12.09.2006 and the challenge to the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in WP No.504/2008 vide order dt.05.04.2010. The same fate befell in respect of the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Indeed, the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench quashed the DOPT memo dated 7.9.2001 which was standing in the way of granting eligible ACP/MACP by taking into consideration service rendered in the State Govt. Similar relief was granted by the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.720/2013 and this Bench in OA No.8/2017. Respondents have not referred to these judgments in the reply statement. Further, there is no legal document on record contravening the finding of the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal that the service rendered in the State Govt. shall be considered for grant of ACP/MACP. Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the service rendered by the applicant from the date of absorption in the Central Administrative Tribunal is to be considered for the purpose of ACP/MACP is not in consonance with law.

The essence of the judgment in Balbir Singh Turn cited supra, is to grant the MACP benefits from 1.1.2006. This Tribunal in OA No.477/2014 vide order dt. 24.01.2020 allowed a similar relief following the legal principles laid above. The judgments of the superior Judicial fora and that of the Coordinate Benches have to be adhered to as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.I. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor [(2000) 1 SCC 644]. Therefore, the claim for grant of ACP/MACP benefits by taking into consideration the Service put up by the applicant in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and extending the said benefits from 1.1.2006, as per the eligibility of the applicant is fair and hence, has to be considered.

IV. The contention of the respondents in regard to the claim being belated does not hold water since any change in pay /pension is a continuous cause of action. Improper grant of ACP/MACP will impact fixation of pay/pension which will be a source of injury to the applicant on a monthly basis. Hence limitation, delay and latches would not come into play in respect of grant of ACP/MACP and consequential benefits thereof, as pleaded for by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

V. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, respondents are directed to consider as under: