SHYAM SWAROOP BHATNAGAR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

1 OA No.3134/2022

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi


OA No.3134/2022


Order reserved on: 24.07.2026
Order pronounced on: 25.08.2026


Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)


1. Shri Shyam Swaroop Bhatnagar
Son of Shri Inder Swaroop Bhatnagar
Aged about 59 Years,
Designation Adhoc Assistant Community Organizer
Resident of F-4, T B Hospital, MCD Flats,
Staff Quarters, Nehru Nagar,
New Delhi-110065.

2. Shri Ravinder Kumar Arora
Son of Shri Banwari Lal Arora
Aged about 58 Years
Designation Adhoc Assistant Community Organizer
Resident of G-4/108, Sector-11, Rohini,
Delhi-110085

3. Shri Ramesh Kumar Malik
Son of Shri Nihal Chand
Aged about 59 Years
Designation Adhoc Assistant Community Organizer
Resident of WZ-335A, Lajwanti Gareden,
Gali No 13, Opposite Janak Puri,
D-1, Block, New Delhi-110046

4. Smt. Sunita Dar
Wife of Shri Sanjeev Dar
Aged about 57 Years
Designation Adhoc Assistant Community Organizer
Resident of Flat No 9200 DDA LIG Flats,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070

SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

2 OA No.3134/2022

5. Smt. Anita Bhardwaj
Wife of Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj
Aged about 59 Years
Designation Adhoc Assistant Community Organizer
Resident of House No 117,
Street No. 01, Rameshwar Nagar,
Azad Pur, Delhi-110033
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr.Pramod Kumar Sharma with Ms. Neeti and
Mr. Suresh Kumar)

Versus

Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Dr S P M Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Akshit Gupta)


ORDER

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)


The instant Original Application has been filed by the
applicants, 5 in number, under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following
relief:
“ a. Set aside the impugned speaking order dated
09.09.2022 and direct the Respondent to grant the
benefits of Financial Upgradation under the MACP/ACP
Scheme from their respective due dates with all
consequential monetary benefits in terms of the
Judgments Passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ
Petition No 4009 of 2007 dated 17.10.2008 read with the
another Judgment dated 17.01.2020 in Writ Petition No
11200 of 2017 keeping in consonance with the principle of
equal treatment as enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
b. Be further pleased to allow the application with costs.
c. Be proper under to facts and circumstances of the
case.”

SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

3 OA No.3134/2022


2. Factual Matrix


2.1 The present applicants joined Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD) as Community Workers (part time) between the
years 1981 to 1984. The respondents regularized the
applicants by passing office order in respect of each of the
applicants. At the time of appointment as community
workers, they were appointed on ad hoc basis. The details of
duty for which applicants were appointed on ad hoc basis as
community workers as well as the date of their regular
appointment as community worker are given in detail by the
respondents in their speaking order dated 09.09.2022 on
pages 3 & 4 of the said order. The applicants have earlier
filed OA No.1297/2022 titled Shyam Swaroop Bhatnagar
and ors. vs. South DMC . The Coordinate Bench of this
Tribunal vide order dated 23.05.2022 directed the
respondents to consider the case of the applicants in terms of
directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.1226/2022 dated
11.05.2022. This Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2022
directed the respondents to consider the case of the
applicants in terms of directions issued by this Tribunal in
OA No.1226/2022 decided on 11.05.2022. This Tribunal
vide order dated 11.05.2022 in aforementioned OA directed to
consider the pending representations of the applicants
therein within specific period. The present applicants in OA
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

4 OA No.3134/2022

No.1297/2022 sought direction to the respondents to grant
financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme from the
respective dues dates with all consequential benefits in terms
of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Writ Petition No.4009/2007 decided on 17.10.2008 and also
judgment dated 17.01.2020 in WP (C) No.11200/2017.

2.2 In pursuance of the direction dated 23.05.2022 passed
in OA No.1297/2022 the respondents passed a detailed
speaking order dated 09.09.2022, rejecting the claim of the
applicants for grant of ACP/MACP benefits from the
respective due dates considering at the time of service
rendered as community workers as qualifying service for
grant of such financial upgradation. Being aggrieved, the
applicant has filed the instant OA, seeking the aforesaid
relief.

3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered
appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicants have
filed their rejoinder.

4. Submissions by learned counsel for the applicants

4.1 Learned counsel for the applicants states that the
applicants have indirectly served with the respondents as part
time workers during various periods as mentioned in the
speaking order dated 09.09.2022. However, the Hon’ble High
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

5 OA No.3134/2022

Court of Delhi vide order dated 17.10.2008 passed in Writ
Petition No.4009/2007 – Krishna Kant Sharma & Ors. vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi had declared that the part
time service rendered by the petitioners therein would be
counted towards qualifying service for pension and gratuity
purposes. He referred to paragraph 9 of the said judgment,
which is reproduced below:
“9. In the light of the above judgment in Urmil Chopra
which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this
Court, the present petition is allowed. A direction is
issued to the MCD to re-fix the pension and gratuity
payable to Petitioners 1 to 4 within three months from
today by counting for the period of their service as
Community Worker (Part Time). As regards Petitioner No.5
her pension and gratuity will be fixed within three months
by counting her entire length of service on the same lines
as directed by this Court in Urmil Chopra’s case. The
arrears shall simultaneously be released to each of the
petitioners within the same period.”


4.2 Learned counsel for the applicants further refers to
Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 17.01.2020 in W.P.C.
No.11200/2017 titled Mrs. Krishan Kanta Sharma & Ors. v.
East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. The relevant part
of order dated 17.01.2020 is reproduced below for better
appreciation:

“1. Learned counsel for the Respondents does not dispute
the fact that the Petitioners stand on the same footing as
Mrs. Urmil Chopra, in whose W.P.(C) 148/1997 ( Smt.
Urmil Chopra v. The Commissioner ) relief was granted
by a judgment dated 16th November, 2005. However, he
seeks to distinguish its applicability on two counts: first,
that Mrs. Urmil Chopra has put in 13 years of service,
whereas the Petitioners have served for a lesser length of
time. As far as this objection is concerned, the Court
finds that there is nothing in the applicable rules to
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

6 OA No.3134/2022

indicate that the benefit of the ACP Scheme shall hinge
upon one’s number of years of service.

2. The second point of distinction is made by referring to
the judgment of this Court dated 12th March, 2013 in
W.P.(C) 1261/2012 ( MCD v. Mrs. Raj Bala Mann and
batch ), where the Court noted that Mrs. Urmil Chopra,
although engaged as a ‘Community Worker (Part Time)’
was, as a matter of fact, working on a full time basis.

3. As far as the present petition is concerned, the
situation is no different, as has been noted by the CAT
and in an order dated 17th October, 2008 of this Court in
W.P.(C) 4009/2007 ( Krishna Kant Sharma v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi ) that these Petitioners
too, although termed as ‘Community Worker (Part Time)’
were in fact working on a full time basis.

4. Thus, with there being no points of distinction between
the case of Mrs. Urmil Chopra and the case on hand, the
Court sees no reason why the Petitioners be denied the
benefit extended to Mrs. Urmil Chopra. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 6th February, 2017 of the CAT as
well as the order dated 6th April, 2017 in R.A. No.
83/2020 are hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the
Respondents to grant each of the Petitioners the benefits
of the 2nd financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme
from their respective due dates. The arrears shall be paid
not later than 12 weeks from today, failing which the
Respondents will be liable to pay simple interest at 6%
per annum on said arrears for the period of delay.

5. The petition is disposed of.”

4.3 Learned counsel for the applicants states that both the
judgments are based on the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in W.P.C. No.148/1997 titled Smt. Urmil
Chopra v. The Commissioner , decided on 16.11.2005. In
the said judgment the period of service rendered as part time
community workers by the petitioners therein was treated as
regular service for pensionary purpose. For better
appreciation, paragraph-19 of the said judgment in Urmil
Chopra (supra) is reproduced as follows:

SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

7 OA No.3134/2022

“19. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
pension as per the (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972. The petition
is accordingly partly allowed; the MCD is directed to fix the
petitioner's pension having regard to the two distinct
periods of service put in by her namely, as a part-time
Community Worker between 1975 and 1988) and
thereafter till her superannuation on 31.12.1996. The
pension fixation order shall also take into account the
revision in pension, dearness allowance on pension and
other service benefits admissible and work out the amount
for entire period from 31.12.1996, till date within a period
of three months from today. The arrears shall also be
simultaneously released to the petitioner within that
period.

Rule made absolute in the above terms.”

4.4 In view of the aforementioned judgments by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Mrs. Krishan Kant Sharma (supra) as
well as the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Urmil Chopra (supra). The learned counsel for the
respondents states that the part time period as community
worker by the present applicants should be considered as a
regular service for grant of ACP/MACP benefits to the
applicants. He particularly emphasized that in the case of
Mrs. Krishan Kanta Sharma (supra) the similar benefit has
been granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to the
petitioners therein who were working as community workers
(part time) but actually working on full time basis.

5. Submissions by the learned counsel for the
respondents


5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the claim of the applicants for grant of ACP/MACP
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

8 OA No.3134/2022

benefits treating the part time period as full time period for
the present applicants. He states that in the case of Urmil
Chopra (supra) there was no issue regarding ACP/MACP
benefits. It was regarding the claim of the petitioners to
count part time service as regular service/qualifying service
for the purpose of pension. The judgment in Krishna Kant
Sharma (supra) is also regarding grant of pensionary benefits
based on the judgment of Urmil Chopra (supra). However, in
the cases of Mrs. Krishna Kant Sharma (supra), applying the
ratio of judgments in Krishan Kant Sharma (supra) and
Urmil Chopra (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
granted financial upgradation treating the period of part time
as qualifying service for grant of financial upgradation for
ACP/MACP benefit. ACP/MACP Schemes have categorically
mentioned that period of regular service shall be taken into
consideration for grant of such financial upgradation in the
respective Schemes. Any contractual, part time and casual
service shall not be considered towards regular service for
grant of financial upgrdation under ACP/MACP Schemes. In
view of the specific provisions in the said judgment in Mrs.
Krishna Kanta Sharma (supra) the said decision is in
personam rather than in rem. Hence the benefit of this
judgment cannot be granted to other employees who claim
parity with Mrs. Krishna Kanta Sharma.

SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

9 OA No.3134/2022

5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further cited the
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in M.C.D. & Anr. v. Mrs.
Raj Bala Maan & Anr. , WPC No.1461/2012 & batch decided
on 12.03.2013, wherein it has been held as under:

“10. Now, the decision of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in Urmil Chopra’s case is on the fact that Urmil
Chopra successfully established that though ostensibly
appointed as a Community Worker (PartTime), as a matter
of fact she worked full time. It was on said proof of fact
that relief was granted to Urmil Chopra.

11. Being a question of fact, which has not been decided
by the Tribunal, we dispose of all the writ petitions setting
aside the impugned order dated 19-8-2011, 26-9-2011 as
also 15-11-2011 and simultaneously remand the matters
to the Tribunal for adjudicating whether the Original
Applicants before the Tribunal had performed Full Time
duties. The reason for said factual adjudication is that
admittedly all of them were appointed as Community
Workers (Part-Time). Unless they can show that they had
actually worked full time, as was shown by Urmil Chopra,
relief as prayed by them cannot be granted.

12. We note that the issue pertaining to Rule 14 and
Article 368 of the CSRs (Rule 14) would become relevant
only if it is established as a matter of fact that the
claimants before the Tribunal worked part time. If said
fact is established, rest will follow for the reason the
Pension Rules do not apply to an employee engaged on
part time basis. But if it is found that the claimants had
worked full time, the issue would resolve itself on the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge in Urmil Chopra’s
case.”


5.3 Referring to the aforementioned judgment of Hon’ble
High Court in Raj Bala Maan (supra), learned counsel for the
respondents states that the decision in Urmil Chopra (supra)
is also a unique one and the judgment is to be taken into
consideration and to be treated as in personam rather than in
rem. Moreover, it was held in the said judgment that though
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

10 OA No.3134/2022

Urmil Chopra was appointed as part time community worker
but she worked for the full time.

5.4 In view of the fact that the judgment in Urmil Chopra
(supra) is a judgment in personam and not in rem and hence
it cannot be construed to mean that it will be applicable to
each individual who is though working as part time worker to
be treated as working on full time basis.

5.5 In view of the above mentioned averments learned
counsel for the respondents states that the order dated
09.09.2022 is a reasoned and detailed one and does not
suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The DoP&T OM
dated 09.08.1999 introducing the ACP Scheme states in
paragraph 3.2 as follows:

“3.2 ‘Regular Service’ for the purpose of ACP Scheme
shall be interpreted to mean the eligibility service counted
for regular service in terms of relevant recruitment/service
rules.”


5.6 Annexure-I of the said OM in clause 5.2 states that
“Residency periods (regular service) for grant of benefits under
the ACP Scheme shall be counted from the grade in which an
employee was appointed as a direct recruit.” By implication
the periods of part time service, casual service are not
included as period to be counted towards granting benefits
under the ACP Scheme.

SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

11 OA No.3134/2022

5.7 The DoP&T OM dated 19.05.2009 introducing the MACP
Scheme under clause 3 particularly states that the MACP
Scheme shall be applicable to all regularly appointed Central
Government Civilian employees. Casual employees including
those granted temporary status and employees appointed in
the Government only on ad hoc or contract basis shall not
qualify for benefits under the said Scheme. Further,
Annexure -I of the said Scheme under clause 9 has specified:

“9. 'Regular service' for the purposes of the MACPS 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. Service rendered
on adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment on
pre-appointment training shall not be taken into
reckoning. However, past continuous regular service in
another Government Department in a post carrying same
grade pay prior to regular appointment in a new
Department, without a break, shall also be counted
towards qualifying regular service for the purposes of
MACPS only (and not for the regular promotions).
However, benefits under the MACPS in such cases shall
not be considered till the satisfactory completion of the
probation period in the new post.”



5.8 In view of the provisions contained in ACP/MACP
Schemes, as detailed above, ordinarily any employee who
served on the basis of casual or part time basis is not entitled
for ACP/MACP benefits, counting the period of such
casual/part time service for the purpose of granting the
benefits under the said Scheme.




SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

12 OA No.3134/2022

6. Rejoinder submissions by learned counsel for the
respondents

6.1 Learned counsel for the applicants further refers to the
counter-affidavit filed by the respondents where in paragraph-
7, the following has been mentioned:

“7. That Community Services Department, MCD has

decided to formulate a policy regarding counting the part
time service of Community Workers. Accordingly, a
circular dated 05.02.2024 has issued regarding counting
of 50% service rendered at the post of part-time
Community Workers as qualifying service for the purpose
of Pensionary/ACP/MACP benefits. Copy of circular
dated 05.02.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE R-1.”


6.2 The learned counsel for the applicants states that as the
MCD has resolved that counting of 50% service rendered by
part time community workers will be treated as qualifying
service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as
ACP/MACP benefits, the applicants are praying for counting
100% of such service towards grant of financial upgrdation
under ACP/MACP benefits as per the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in aforementioned cited cases of Urmil
Chopra (supra) and Mrs. Krishan Kanta Sharma (supra).

7. Analysis

7.1 Now, it is worthwhile to delve into the opening
paragraph of Urmil Chopra (supra) which states that:

“1. The writ petitioner claims for the relief of
regularization and reckoning of the entire period of her
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

13 OA No.3134/2022

service, rendered as part-time (and later, full time)
Community Worker, for the purposes of pension.”

7.2 Paragraph 19 of the said judgment has already been
extracted under the submissions by the learned counsel for
the applicants.

7.3 Perusal of the said judgment shows that the Writ
Petition was not filed for grant of ACP/MACP benefits to the
petitioner therein. Hence, the issue whether the part time
service would be considered for granting ACP/MACP benefits
has not been adjudicated in the said Writ Petition. The said
judgment has granted relief to the petitioner to consider the
period of part time service to record as qualifying service in
terms of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for grant of
pension and gratuity. That does not automatically extend the
period of part time service rendered by any other employee in
MCD to be considered towards counting for benefits of
financial upgradation under ACP/MACP benefits despite the
specific provision that such a part time service will not be
included as part of regular service for grant of such financial
upgradations. In paragraph-15 of the said judgment it has
been held that:

“15. Some time in the year 1992 this Court, had, after
considering various aspects directed regularization of part-
time employees to the existing vacant posts. The material
on record disclose that the petitioners’ seniority,
determined after that judgment was at Sl.No.21. The
judgment had noticed that there were 47 vacant posts.
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

14 OA No.3134/2022

Hence, there was no impediment in treating the petitioner
as a regular employee both on the basis of her
qualification as also because vacant posts existed. The
direction of the Single Judge was confirmed and it attained
finally. Hence, the petitioner, who admittedly belonged to
the class of employees on whose behalf proceedings were
initiated before this Court, became entitled to the benefit
of declaration and directions.”


7.4 A close examination of the aforementioned paragraph-15
of the judgment in Urmil Chopra (supra) would reveal that
the Hon’ble High Court has observed that there were 47
vacant posts. Hence, there was no impediment in treating the
petitioner as a regular employee, both on the basis of her
qualification as also because vacant posts existed. In other
words, in the said judgment there is indirect inference that
Urmil Chopra has been regularized since she was appointed
on part time basis because of her qualification and the
existing vacant posts.

7.5 The aforementioned interpretation has been affirmed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. Raj Bala
Mann (supra) in paragraphs 10 to 12 which have already
been extracted under the submissions by the learned counsel
for the respondents. Particularly, in paragraph-10 of the said
judgment the Hon’ble High Court has held that in Urmil
Chopra’s case (supra) she successfully established that
though ostensibly qualified as part time worker, as a matter
of fact she worked full time. However, petitioners in the batch
of Writ Petitions, it has been admitted that all of them were
SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

15 OA No.3134/2022

appointed part time and in paragraph 11 it has been
categorically stated that unless they can show that they had
actually worked full time, as was shown by Urmil Chopra,
relief as prayed for by them cannot be granted.

7.6 Coming back to the case at hand, none of the applicants
in the instant case have proved that they worked full time
when they were appointed on part time basis and served as
such as part time community workers for various periods till
they were regularized. In view of this, the benefit of judgment
of Urmil Chopra (supra) cannot be extended to the present
applicants.

7.7 As regards the averments by the learned counsel for the
applicants that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Krishna Kant
Sharma (supra) was given benefit of part time worker for part
time period for pensionary benefits, again it is reiterated that
the said judgment is for grant of pension and gratuity.
Similarly, the judgment in Mrs. Krishan Kanta Sharma
(supra) has referred the judgment of Urmil Chopra (supra).
However, as it has been rightly averred by learned counsel for
the respondents and it has been further examined in Raj Bala
Maan (supra), the said judgment can be termed as judgment
in personam rather than in rem.

SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

16 OA No.3134/2022

7.8 None of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for
the applicants has qualified the concept of ‘regular service’ as
defined in clause 3.2 of DoP&T OM dated 09.08.1999
regarding ACP Scheme, clause 5.2 of Annexure-I of
aforementioned OM dated 09.08.1999 as well as clause 3 of
DoP&T OM dated 19.05.1999 and clause 9 of Annexure-I of
aforementioned OM introducing the MACP Scheme.

7.9 In view of the fact that none of the judgments has
negated or nullified the said provisions in the two Schemes,
the judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the
applicants can be termed as judgments in personam rather
than in rem. Moreover, the applicants have not brought
anything on record to prove that the period they worked as
part time amounts to full time work and the period could be
treated as full time working against sanctioned posts. This
Tribunal is not inclined to grant the benefit of 100% period of
part time service as qualifying service for grant of ACP/MACP
benefits. However, it is left to the respondents to implement
that decision dated 31.10.2023 vide the MCD Resolution
No.80 conveyed to all concerned vide circular dated
05.02.2024.






SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT

17 OA No.3134/2022


8. Conclusion

8.1 In view of the above analysis the OA lacks merit and
hence dismissed.

9. No order as to costs.

10. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.



(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)

‘SD’


SUNITA 2026.09.02
16:08:49+05'30'
DUTT