SAROJ KUMARI vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

1
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA No. 1084/2022

Order Reserved on: 10.07.2026
Order Pronounced on: 31.08.2026

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

Mrs. Saroj Kumari,
Aged about 55 years
W/o SH. Ravinder,
Office-RHTC, Rural Health Training centre,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
(Working as (ANM).
... Applicant

(By Advocate : Shri Sandeep Kumar with Shri Pramod
Kumar)

Versus

1. Min. of Health and family Welfare,
Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Government of India,
A, Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 110011.

2. The Director, RHTC, Rural Health Training centre.
DTE General of Health Services, Najafgarh,
New Delhi 110043.

3. Pay and Accounts officer
Min. of Health and family Welfare,
A, Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 110011.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Ranjan Tyagi)

2
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :

The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the learned
counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant was initially
appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the
Haryana Government on 02.07.1988. She was selected on
deputation as ANM in the Rural Health Training Centre
(RHTC), Najafgarh, under the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare on 21.02.2006 and was permanently absorbed in
the Central Government service with effect from 18.03.2008.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
despite her long and continuous service since 1988, the
st
respondents granted the applicant only the 1 financial
upgradation under the MACP Scheme vide order dated
30.07.2019/01.08.2019 with effect from 18.03.2018 by
counting only ten years of service from the date of
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
absorption in the Central Government. He contended that
this fixation ignored her earlier regular service in the State
Government, thereby placing her juniors at a higher level of
pay and seniority and causing her continuing financial loss.
Learned counsel for the applicant further alleged that the
pay of the applicant was wrongly fixed and even recovery

3
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

proceedings were initiated because of such erroneous
fixation.
3. The applicant repeatedly represented before the
respondents requesting that her regular service under the
Haryana Government be counted for the purpose of
ACP/MACP benefits. As no decision was taken on her
representations, she approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.
No. 2587/2021. By order dated 26.11.2021, the Tribunal
disposed of the said Original Application without examining
the merits and directed the respondents to consider the
pending representations and pass a reasoned and speaking
order within the stipulated period.
4. Pursuant to the Tribunal's directions, the respondents
passed a speaking order dated 22.02.2022 rejecting the
applicant's claim for counting her State Government service
towards ACP/MACP. Being Aggrieved by the same, the
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the
KAPOOR
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following
relief(s) :-
“(i) quash and set aside impugned order dated In
22.02.2022 (Annexure A-1).

(ii). Direct the respondents to count previous
service rendered before the state government for

4
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

the purpose of granting ACP/MACP benefits w.e.f
2.07.1988.

st nd
(iii). Direct the respondents to grant 1 ACP, 2
ACP and MACP to applicant as per entitlement and
Pay and allowances be accordingly fixed.

(iii). All consequential benefits may be granted to
the Applicants.
Or
any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case.”

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that not
counting of the past service of the applicant for the purpose
of ACP/MACP is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and is in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. In addition to the pleadings on record, the applicant
has also filed written synopsis. In support of her
contentions, the applicant has relied upon the order of the
Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in Kishan Lal v. Union of
India & Others (O.A. No. 279/2010, decided on
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
13.05.2015), wherein the Tribunal, following the judgment of
the Rajasthan High Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs.
D.K. Sharma & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 405/2008),
held that regular service rendered in a State Government
prior to absorption in the Central Government is liable to be
counted for the purpose of ACP/MACP and struck down the

5
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

clause 10 (para 10) of the MACP Scheme. The applicant has
also relied upon the fact that the Special Leave Petition filed
against the judgment in D.K. Sharma (supra) was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby according
finality to the principle laid down therein.
7. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their
reply opposing the OA. The learned counsel for the
respondents contended that the OA is devoid of merit as the
st
applicant has already been granted the 1 financial
upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from
18.03.2018 after completion of ten years of regular service in
the Central Government following her absorption on
18.03.2008. The benefit was extended through Office Order
dated 30.07.2019/01.08.2019 in accordance with the
applicable Government of India instructions.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
although the applicant initially joined the Haryana
KAPOOR
Government on ad hoc basis on 02.07.1988 and her services
were regularized on 03.12.1990, she entered Central
Government service on deputation only on 21.02.2006 and
was permanently absorbed on 18.03.2008 after accepting all
the terms and conditions governing absorption.
Consequently, only her regular service under the Central

6
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

Government can be taken into account for grant of MACP
benefits. He further submitted that the governing provision
is the DoPT Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D)
dated 22.10.2019. He relied specifically upon paragraph 9 of
Annexure-I thereof, which provides that :
“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…”
9. He further relied on paragraph 10 of Annexure-I of the
aforesaid OM, which expressly stipulates that past service
rendered in a State Government, Statutory Body, Autonomous
Body or Public Sector organization before appointment in the
Central Government shall not be counted towards regular
service under the MACP Scheme . On this basis, it is
contended that the applicant's claim is contrary to the
governing policy.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also explained
RACHNA
KAPOOR
st
that the applicant had earlier been granted 1 MACP with
effect from 21.02.2016 by Office Order dated 26.03.2018,
but the said order was subsequently withdrawn on
29.07.2018 pursuant to the observations made by the Pay
and Accounts Office, Directorate General of Health Services.
Thereafter, upon review, the applicant was correctly granted

7
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

st
the 1 MACP with effect from 18.03.2018 after completion of
ten years of regular Central Government service.
11. It is further pleaded that the respondents complied
with the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.
2587/2021 by issuing a detailed speaking order dated
22/24.02.2022 rejecting the applicant's representation
strictly in accordance with the applicable rules. The
respondents denied that the applicant has suffered any
discrimination or that her juniors have been placed above
her contrary to law, asserting that she is receiving pay,
allowances and seniority strictly in accordance with the
applicable rules and Government instructions.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
Analysis
13. Following are the undisputed facts :
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
(a) Applicant was appointed as an ANM on adhoc basis w.e.f
02.07.1988 and her service was regularized w.e.f.
03.12.1990 in Haryana State Government.

8
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

st
(b) 1 ACP in the Pay scale of Rs 5000-150-7100-E B-150-
7850/- was granted to the applicant w.e.f 01.01.2001.
(c) Applicant has applied for the post of ANM in the pay scale
of Rs 4000-100-6000 at Rural Health Training Centre
(RHTC), Najafgarh on deputation to the Union Government
and came on deputation after her selection to the post on
21.02.2006. Subsequently she was absorbed w.e.f.
18.03.2008 in the same grade and at the same post.
(d) Applicant willfully accepted lower pay scale of Rs.4000-
100-6000 in the Central Government on
deputation/absorption inspite of the fact that she was
working in the pay scale Rs.5000-150-7100-EB-150-7800.
st
(e) Respondents granted 1 MACP to the applicant w.e.f.
18.03.2018 only after counting service from the date of her
absorption in the Central Government w.e.f 18.03.2008.
(f) The respondents have declined to count the service
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
rendered by the applicant in the State Government of
Haryana w.e.f. 02.07.1988 till the date of her deputation
with the respondents i.e. up to 20.02.2006 and the period on
deputation from 21.02.2006 to 17.03.2008 for the purpose
of grant MACP mainly on the ground of paras 9 & 10 of

9
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

Annexure-I to DoPT's OM. No.35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated
22.10.2019 issued on the subject, which are as under :-
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 casual, adhoc/contract
basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment
training shall not be taken into reckoning. However,
past continuous regular service in same/another
Central Government Department in a post carrying
same pay level in the Pay Matrix 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.
10. Past service rendered by a Central Government
employee in a State Government/Statutory
Body/Autonomous body/Public Sector organization,
before appointment in the Central Government shall
not be counted towards Regular Service.”

(g) It is understood that paras 9 & 10 of the DoPT's OM
dated 22.10.2019 are exactly similar and reproduction of
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
paras 9 & 10 of DoPT's OM dated 19.05.2009 issued on the
subject.
(h) The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed in
C.W.P No 1830/2016 titled as Union of India & Others Vs
Sh. Kishan Lal & Others has held as under :-

10
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

“ACP is not a substantive promotion but an anti-
stagnation measure to boost the morale of the
employee who otherwise may have had no avenue for
promotion, affecting his performance of duties.
Earlier, the ACP Scheme provided for the benefit after
12 and 24 years and the MACP Scheme provides for
a third benefit after 30 years of service.
The respondents were appointed as Constables
either in the Rajasthan Police or in Punjab Police.
Respondent No.3 is widow of a deceased employee.
They were sent on deputation to the CBI at Jodhpur
as Constables on different dates, ranging from March
1986 to August 1991. They were then absorbed in
the CBI at Jodhpur. It is not the case of the petitioner
that either at the time of deputation or absorption it
was made known to them that their past services in
the police forces was not to count for what purposes.
Had it been intimated they may not have agreed for
deputation. Conversely the grant of 1 st and 2 nd
ACP to them indicates to the contrary. The MACP
Scheme dated 19th May 2009 in clause 11 provides
that no past cases would be re-opened. Clause 9
defining 'regular service' for the purpose of the MACP
provides that past regular service “in another
Government Department” without break shall be
counted towards qualifying regular service. Regular
service is defined as including the period spent on
deputation.
If a person was eligible and had been granted ACP
and the MACP Scheme provides that past cases
would not be re-opened, it is difficult to fathom how
eligibility earlier would now become ineligibility.
Regular service has been defined to include
deputation. It is primarily an anti-stagnation
measure and not a substantive promotion and
therefore must be interpreted liberally.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
Deputation is but another facet of transfer as the
place of discharge of duty also changes. The issue fell
for consideration in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union
of India, (1999) 2 SCC 119 observing as follows :-
"20. In our view, the Tribunal was in error and
its order is set aside. The appellants will be
entitled to the higher grade from the date they

11
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

completed 16 years of service — computing the
same by taking into account their past service
in the Rehabilitation Department also along
with the service in the P&T Department. They
will be so entitled as long as they remain in the
post of Assistant and till their normal promotion
to a higher post according to the Rules. The
difference between the emoluments in the grade
as due to them and the amount which was
actually paid to them, shall be computed and be
paid within a month from the date of this
order."
(i) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide its
judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed in WP(C) 1539/2016
titled as Union of India & another Vs Girbar Singh &
Ors. has held as under :
“2. Respondents had filed the subject Original
Application before the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal seeking benefit of the service
rendered in the parent cadre (State Government)
while considering the eligibility and suitability for
financial upgradation in terms of MACP Scheme
issued vide O.M No. 35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) dated
19.05.2009.
3. The only ground on which the petitioners denied
benefit of financial upgradation to the respondents
with reference to their service rendered in the parent
organization, was in terms of clause 10 of condition 4
of the MACP scheme which provided that past
services rendered by a permanent employee in State
Government/Statutory Body/Autonomous
body/Public sector organization before appointment
in the Government shall not be counted as regular
service for the purposes of the scheme.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
4. The Tribunal in the order dated 12.05.2019,
impugned herein, has noticed that a bench of the
Tribunal at Jodhpur by order dated 13.04.2015 in
O.A 279/2010 ( Kishan Lal vs. UOI ) struck down
clause 10 of the MACP Scheme.

12
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

5. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the
impugned order has noticed that the Coordinate
bench of the Tribunal at Jodhpur in Kishan
Lal (Supra) had relied upon another decision of the
Tribunal at Jodhpur dated 12.09.2006 in O.A
97/2004 in the case of D.K.Sharma vs. Union of
India & Ors .
6. The decision in D.K.Sharma (Supra) was upheld by
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur by its order dated 05.04.2010 in CWP
No.504/2008 and the Special Leave Petition against
the said order [SLP No.15324/2010] was dismissed
in limine on 04.10.2010 by the Supreme Court.
7. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the order
dated 12.05.2015, impugned herein, had referred to
the decision of the Supreme Court in S.I.Rooplal &
Anr. vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary Delhi &
Ors (2000(1) SCC 644) wherein the Supreme Court
has held that the bench of a Tribunal is bound by the
view taken by a coordinate bench of equal
strength. Referring to the decision in Rooplal (Supra)
the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has held that it
found no reason to differ with the view taken
in Kishan Lal 's case.
8. It may further be noticed that the decision of the
Rajasthan bench of the Tribunal in Kishan Lal 's case
was impugned by the Union of India (petitioner
therein) before the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1830/2016. Said writ petition was dismissed by
the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by
its order dated 24.08.2016 holding that no ground
had been urged before it to show that the case of
Kishan Lal was different from D.K.Sharma which had
been relied on by the Bench of the Tribunal.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have
not impugned the decision of the Rajasthan High
Court in Kishan Lal any further and have accepted
the judgment. It is also not in dispute that both
Kishan Lal and Dharmendra Kumar Sharma have
been given the benefit which is sought to be denied
to the respondents herein.

13
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

10. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal by the order
impugned herein has merely followed the decision in
Kishan Lal whereby the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench has quashed clause 10 of
the MACP Scheme.
11. Once a particular clause of a scheme is quashed
and that quashing is upheld by the High Court, said
clause ceases to exist in the scheme particularly
when the Government has decided to accept the
decision of the High Court and implemented the
same.
12. For all practical purposes clause 10 ceases to
exist from the MACP Scheme and as such the ground
on which respondents have been denied the benefit
i.e. application of clause 10 is an erroneous
application of the said scheme.
13. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the order was implemented in Kishan
Lal (Supra) only qua Kishan Lal is not acceptable for
the reason that there is no such direction either by
the Tribunal or by the Rajasthan High Court that the
scheme has to be implemented in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case. On the other hand
in Kishan Lal 's case the Tribunal has struck down
clause 10 of the scheme which has been upheld by
the High Court and such striking down has been
accepted by the petitioners. Once the petitioners in
the case of Kishan Lal have accepted the striking
down of the particular clause they cannot seek to
implement said clause qua other similarly situated
employees.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
14. Attempt was made by learned counsel for the
petitioners to distinguish the case of the respondents
herein from the case of D.K.Sharma (Supra).
15. We may at this stage notice that in the present
writ petition there is no attempt made to factually
distinguish the case of the respondents from the case
of D.K.Sharma (Supra).
16. The only ground urged in the petition
qua D.K.Sharma (Supra) is ground D which reads as
under:-

14
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

"D. That the Tribunal gave undue weightage to the
earlier judgement passed in the case of UOI & Ors
V/s D K Sharma and absorbed that the said order
has attained finality as the SLP filed by the UOI has
been dismissed. However, the fact is that the Hon'ble
Apex Court dismissed the said SLP without passing
any speaking order and as such it cannot be said
with precision that the issues has been settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court conclusively."
17. Perusal of ground D clearly shows that
petitioners have not even attempted to distinguish
the case of the respondents from that
of D.K.Sharma (Supra).
18. It may also be noticed that the Division Bench of
the Rajasthan High Court while disposing of Kishan
Lal 's case also observed that no attempt was made by
the petitioner to distinguish the case of Kishan Lal
from that of D.K.Sharma.
19. Even otherwise as noticed hereinabove, since
clause 10 has already been quashed in Kishan Lal 's
case, petitioners cannot rely upon the same to deny
benefit to the respondents herein.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
being a policy decision the Jodhpur bench
erroneously quashed clause 10 of the scheme.
21. We are unable to accept the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners for the reason that the
Tribunal in the order impugned herein has not
quashed clause 10 of the scheme but has only relied
upon a decision of the Jodhpur bench of the Tribunal
which had quashed clause 10 of the Scheme, the
quashing of which was upheld by the Division Bench
of the High Court and that quashing was accepted by
the petitioners and the order was implemented.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
22. So for all practical purposes, in the scheme that
has been applied today, there is no clause 10 existing
which could be given effect to for denying benefit to
the respondents. As such we find no merit in the
said contention also and reject the same.

15
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

23. In view of the above, we find no merit in the
petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Our conclusion
14. On the basis of the judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Girbar
Singh & Others (supra), it is concluded that the clause 10
of the M.A.C.P Scheme is not in existence for all practical
purposes. Therefore, the regular/continued service rendered
by the applicant as ANM in Haryana Government has to be
counted for purpose of granting MACP to her i.e. keeping in
view the fact the applicant was initially appointed on ad-hoc
basis to the post of ANM in Haryana State Government on
02.07.1988 and only was regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1990 and
st
the fact that 1 ACP was granted by the Haryana
Government w.e.f. 01.01.2001 but since the applicant has
chosen to apply in lower grade on deputation the benefit of
st
1 ACP cannot be restored. It is settled position of law that if
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
a person is appointed on ad hoc basis on substantive post
KAPOOR
and he/she is regularized without any break then his service
should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment.
15. We feel that the period of service of the applicant from
her initial appointment i.e. 02.07.1988 in Haryana
Government should be counted for the purpose of grant of

16
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

nd rd nd
2 and 3 MACPs and the applicant is entitled for 2 MACP
rd
and 3 MACP after computation of 20 & 30 years of her
service i.e. w.e.f. 01.09.2008 & 02.07.2018 respectively and
necessary direction needs to be issued to the respondent
authority. The impugned order dated 22/24.02.2022 is
liable to be set aside as the same has been issued on the
basis of a provision i.e. para 10 of MACP scheme which has
been declared non-existence for all the practical purposes by
the various constitutional courts.
Order
16. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with
following directions :-
(i) The impugned order dated 22.02.2009 is quashed and
set aside.
nd
(ii) The applicant shall be granted the 2 MACP w.e.f.
rd
01.09.2008 and 3 MACP w.e.f. 02.07.2018 i.e. after
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR
completion of 30 years of service.
(iii) The applicant shall be entitled for all the consequential
benefits flowing from the aforesaid directions including
arrears of salary.

17
Item 57 (C-V)
OA No.1084/2022

17. All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.

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


„rk‟
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
KAPOOR
RACHNA
KAPOOR