Facts
The applicant was appointed as a Casual Labourer on August 21, 1981, and granted Temporary Status (TS) on January 1, 1984
Source reference: p. 3He was subsequently regularized in service on February 28, 1997
Source reference: p. 4The respondents granted him the 1st Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) w.e.f. September 1, 2008, and the 2nd MACP w.e.f. June 6, 2010
Source reference: p. 5The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, contending that his full service from the date of attaining TS (1984) should be counted for financial upgradation, which would entitle him to the 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) in 1999
Source reference: p. 3, 6Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to have 100% of his service period between the grant of Temporary Status and regular appointment counted for the purpose of granting financial upgradations under the ACP/MACP schemes?
Source reference: p. 6 / para 82. Whether there was any illegality in the respondents' decision to grant the 1st MACP from 2008 and 20th year 2nd MACP from 2010 based on a calculation of 50% of TS service?
Source reference: p. 7 / para 11Law Applied
RBE No. 215/2009 dated December 4, 2009, issued by the Ministry of Railways
Source reference: p. 7This rule stipulates that 50% of the service rendered under Temporary Status (TS) as a casual labourer, followed by absorption in regular employment, shall be taken into account toward the minimum qualifying service of 10, 20, and 30 years required for the grant of benefits under the MACP Scheme, drawing an analogy from the calculation of qualifying service for pension
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
In applying RBE No. 215/2009, the Tribunal held that the respondents correctly calculated 50% of the service period spent between the conferment of TS and regularization
Source reference: p. 7While the applicant completed 10 years of service (including the 50% TS credit) by the year 2000, the MACP scheme was only implemented w.e.f. September 1, 2008; thus, he could not claim the benefit prior to that date
Source reference: p. 8Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the benefits of the earlier ACP scheme were not available for periods spent in Temporary Status before regularization
Source reference: p. 8By combining 50% of the TS service with 100% of the regular service, the applicant's entitlement to the 1st MACP in 2008 and the 2nd MACP in 2010 was found to be in strict accordance with existing Railway Board guidelines
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Tribunal held that the respondents’ calculation of benefits was just, fair, and in compliance with the prevailing guidelines. It concluded that the applicant was not entitled to count 100% of his TS service for financial upgradation.
The 1st MACP granted w.e.f. September 1, 2008, and the 2nd MACP granted w.e.f. June 6, 2010, were upheld as legal and proper. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
Gamir N BariavsM/o Railways
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in