Union Of India And Ors vs Chandra Pal Singh And Ors.

$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010496422026
+ W.P.(C) 15236/2026, CM APPL. 71563/2026, CM APPL.
71564/2026 & CM APPL. 71565/2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Aryan Dhaka and Ms. Priyal Goswami,
Advs.
versus
CHANDRA PAL SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 13.10.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 7 August 2025 passed
1
by the Central Administrative Tribunal , whereby OA 2143/2021,
filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, has been allowed.
2. The Tribunal has identified, in para 2.1 of the impugned
judgment, the precise issue arising before it as “whether the training
period undergone by the applicants, who were initially appointed as
Junior Engineers in the Railways, ought to be counted for the purpose
of computing the qualifying service for the Modified Assured Carrier
1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 1 of 9

2
Progression Scheme benefits”.
3. The respondents were selected and appointed as Junior
Engineers and, thereafter, sent for training, following which they were
regularised. The dates of their appointment, completion of training and
regularisation have been annexed by the petitioner in tabular form as
Annexure P-3, from which we extract the relevant columns thus:
S.N. Name Date of
Appointment
Date of
Completion of
Training
Date of
Regularization
1 Chandra Pal Singh 05.04.1988 29.03.1990 30.03.1990
2 Shiv Lal 02.03.1988 29.03.1990 30.03.1990
3 M.K. Jha 27.02.1988 15.03.1990 16.03.1990
4 Shailendra Singh 22.02.1988 15.03.1990 23.03.1990
5 Sanjay Mathur 26.02.1988 15.03.1990 22.03.1990
6 Randhir Singh 26.02.1988 15.03.1990 21.03.1990
7 Raju Nalewal 16.03.1988 29.03.1990 30.03.1990
8 Milind Kumar 14.02.1988 15.03.1990 21.03.1990
9 Nabab Singh 26.02.1988 15.03.1990 21.03.1990
10 Sh. Chandransh
Pandey
04.07.1988 27.07.1990 27.07.1990
11 Sushil Kumar
Singh
14.08.1983 31.10.1985 01.11.1985
12 Ashok Kumar 27.08.1985 28.07.1986 30.07.1986
13 Omprakash 08.10.1985 10.11.1986 12.11.1986
14 Sanjay Kumar 08.10.1985 10.11.1986 12.11.1986
15 K.K. Sharma 08.10.1985 10.11.1986 12.11.1986
16 Brijpal 04.10.1985 10.11.1986 12.11.1986
17 Satyaprasad 08.10.1985 10.11.1986 12.11.1986
18 Syed Kazim Raza 08.10.1985 10.11.1986 12.11.1986
19 Satya prakhash 26.09.2005 25.09.2006 11.10.1986
20 Mohmmad Ilias 25.02.1986 24.02.1987 27.03.1987
21 R.S. Gill 13.05.1987 14.07.1988 14.07.1988
22 Rajeev Bharol 24.09.1988 15.11.1989 15.11,1989
23 Narinder Kumar 20.05.1987 09.05.1988 12.05.1988
24 Satish Jindal 20.05.1987 13.12.1988 13.12.1988
25 Parveen Kumar
Garg
20.05.1987 07.07.1988 07.07.1988
26 Parkash Kumar 04.05.1987 04.07.1988 04.07.1988
2
“MACP” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 2 of 9

27 Vijay Pal 15.01.1987 09.01.1988 15.01.1988
28 Pradeep Kumar
Saxena
18.12.1980 19.12.1981 19.12.1981
4. The respondents were granted the benefit of the MACP
Scheme, but without treating the period of training undergone by them
after their appointment but before regularisation as qualifying service
for the grant of MACP benefits.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Tribunal by
way of OA 2143/2021, praying for ante-dating of the date from which
they were granted MACP benefits, by including, therein, the period
during which they were sent on training, between appointment and
regularisation.
6. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 7 August 2025, allowed
the OA and has directed as under:
7.1. In view of the above discussions, we hereby quash and set
aside the impugned office order dated 16.03.2021 and hold that the
applicants are entitled to the benefit of the grant of MACP.
Accordingly, we direct the respondents to place the cases of the
applicants before the Screening committee for consideration of the
grant of MACP. If the applicants are otherwise eligible under the
Scheme, they shall be granted the benefit of MACP by counting
the service rendered during the training period. All consequential
benefits, including arrears, shall follow.
7.2 The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the
respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
7.3 The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.s,
if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.”
7. We also deem it appropriate to extract paras 2.4 to 2.10 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 3 of 9

impugned judgment thus:
“2.4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the issue of
inclusion of the training period for ACP/MACP has been settled
judicially across multiple forums, with consistent decisions in
favour of employees. Notably:
o Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Gwalior in W.P. No. 5415/2007 dated 15.01.2014.
o Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in
W.P. (C) No. 18880/2015 dated 02.03.2016 and W.P. (C) No.
6963/2018 dated 03.01.2019.
o Judgment of Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.
339/2006 dated 21.08.2007.
2.5. The aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble High Court were
challenged by the Union of India in multiple Special Leave
Petitions (SLPs), including SLP (C) No. 28896/2014 and SLP (C)
No. 32999/2014, which were tagged and heard together before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2.6. The present applicants, being similarly situated, filed I.A.
No. 24019/2019 for impleadment in SLP (C) No. 32999/2014. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 22.10.2019, was pleased
to dismiss all the SLPs, thereby affirming that the training period is
to be included for computing service for ACP.
2.7. It is submitted that the Review Petition filed by the Union
of India against the said decision was also dismissed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.09.2020, thereby reinforcing the
binding nature of the earlier decision.
2.8. Pursuant to these decisions, even the Additional Secretary
& Legal Advisor, Railway Board, issued an office order directing
the implementation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in rem,
confirming its applicability to all similarly placed employees.
2.9. Acting on this, the General Manager, Northern Railways,
sought legal opinion, and the counsel clearly opined that the benefit
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision should be extended to all
eligible employees, including the applicants. However, in a
completely arbitrary and discriminatory move, the respondents
issued an impugned order dated 16.03.2021, stating that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment shall apply only to the
respondents therein and shall not be treated as a precedent, thus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 4 of 9

denying the applicants the benefit of settled law.
2.10. Learned counsel further submitted that recently, the Cuttack
Bench of this Tribunal has once again reaffirmed this settled legal
position in:
 OA No. 260/00485/2021, decided on 15.11.2023, and
 OA No. 122/2022, decided on 02.01.2024, holding that
training period is to be counted for computing service
under MACP.”
8. The Tribunal has held that, as the issue in controversy stood
settled up to the Supreme Court, following the decision in State of
3
Karnataka v. C. Lalita and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar,
4
Srikant Srivastava , the respondents could not be denied the benefits
of said decisions even they were not parties thereto. This view has
been expressed in para 6.2 of the impugned judgment, which reads as
under:
“6.2 The Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha and
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava has held that
service jurisprudence evolved by it from time to time postulates
that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly; only
because one person has approached the Court does not mean that
persons similarly situated should be treated differently; justice
demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue
advantage over other employees; the normal rule is that when a
particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending
that benefit; not doing so would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; this
principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically
as the service jurisprudence evolved from time to time postulates
that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally; this
principle is subject to well-recognized exceptions in the form of
delays/laches/acquiescence; persons who did not challenge
wrongful action in their case and woke up after a long delay, such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered
3
(2006) 2 SCC 747
4
(2015) 1 SCC 347
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 5 of 9

in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them and
delays/laches/acquiescence would be a valid ground to dismiss
their claim.”
9. The Ministry of Railway has assailed the aforesaid decision
dated 7 August 2025 of the Tribunal before us by means of the present
writ petition.
10. We have heard Mr. Mukul Singh, learned CGSC for the
petitioner.
11. Mr. Singh has drawn our attention to the order passed by the
Supreme Court on 22 October 2019 in Union of India v. Ashok
5
Kumar Barik , to which para 2.5 of the impugned judgment makes
reference. The order reads thus:
“ORDER
SLP (C) D. No .28896/2019, SLP (C) No. 32999/2014, SLP (C)
No. 33184/2016, SLP (C) No. 851/2017, SLP (C) No. 10820/2017,
SLP(C) No. 34915-34923/2017, SLP (C) No. 824/2018, SLP (C)
No. 8102/2018, SLP (C) No. 22186-22188/2018
Delay condoned.
We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order(s)
passed by the High Court on the ground that the petitioners were
given the regular pay-scale and the increments were also given to
them right from day one. Even during the training period,
increments were given to them. We have considered the policy
pertaining to ACP. On perusal of the same, we find no ground to
deny the benefit of training period, which was after appointment.
The Special Leave Petitioners are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.”
(Emphasis supplied)
5
SLP(C) Diary No. 28896/2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 6 of 9

12. Mr. Singh sought to distinguish the decision of the Supreme
Court on two grounds. He first sought to submit that, in the case
before the Supreme Court, the training period was undergone after
appointment, whereas, in the present case, it was undergone before
appointment.
13. On his attention being invited to Annexure P-3, which clearly
indicates that the respondents were sent on training after appointment,
but before regularisation , Mr. Singh fairly acknowledges that this
submission may not have been wholly correct.
14. Mr. Singh, nonetheless, submits that the order passed by the
Supreme Court was distinguishable as it deals with the Assured Career
6
Progression Scheme, whereas the present proceedings are related to
the MACP Scheme. He relies on Clause 9 of the Annexure to the
Railway Board circular dated 10 June 2009, which adopted the MACP
Scheme in the Railway Board, and which reads thus:
“9. ‘Regular service’ for the purpose 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 purpose 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.”
6
“ACP” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 7 of 9

15. We do not find that Clause 9 of the Annexure to the terms and
conditions of the MACP Scheme in anyway rendered the order passed
by the Supreme Court inapplicable in the present case. Clause 9
stipulates that, for the purposes of the MACP Scheme, regular service
would commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry
grade on regular basis either on direct recruitment or on absorption/re-
employment, and goes on to state that service rendered on ad hoc or
contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment
training would not be taken into reckoning. It does not, therefore,
state that pre-regularisation training, after appointment but before
regularisation, would not be included as qualifying service for the
purposes of MACP Scheme.
16. The training in question in the present case was not undergone
prior to appointment. Neither was the service rendered by the
respondents before regularisation in any way ad hoc or on contract
basis. The respondents were appointed and, after appointment , were
sent for training. As such, the training was in the nature of post
appointment training and not pre appointment training.
17. We may also note that the fact that the training was undergone
by the employee after appointment has been specifically noted by the
Supreme Court as one of the factors which has persuaded the Supreme
Court to dismiss the SLP in the case of Ashok Kumar Barik , vide its
order dated 22 October 2019.
18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 8 of 9

in extending, to the respondents, the benefit of law as declared by the
various judicial authorities already cited supra and as finally affirmed
by the Supreme Court by its order dated 22 October 2019 in Ashok
Kumar Barik . We clarify that the benefit of the said order cannot be
denied merely on the ground that the scheme in question is the MACP
Scheme and not the ACP Scheme.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal which is, therefore,
affirmed in its entirety.
20. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine .
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
AR
OCTOBER 13, 2026/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
13:23:00
W.P.(C) 15236/2026 Page 9 of 9