Ad hoc service cannot be counted for financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Schemes.

The applicant, S. Assogane, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on an ad hoc basis with the second respondent on 03.05.1982

He was subsequently posted as a Medical Records Clerk on 17.02.1986 and regularized in the post of LDC with effect from 17.02.1986

He was promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 22.07.2002 and took voluntary retirement on 28.02.2007

The applicant was granted the first Assured Career Progression (ACP) upon completion of 12 years of regular service

He sought the second ACP with effect from 01.05.2006 by requesting regularization of his ad hoc service from 03.05.1982 to 17.02.1986

His claim was rejected by the respondents on the grounds that only regular service from the date of regularization is considered for ACP benefits

The applicant alleged discrimination, citing the case of G. Soudarchanane, who was granted the second ACP by reckoning service from the date of initial appointment, implying his ad hoc service was considered

The respondents clarified that G. Soudarchanane's regularization from the initial appointment date was due to an anomaly where his immediate senior and junior were regularized while he was left out

Whether the applicant is entitled to the second ACP with effect from 01.05.2006 by regularizing his ad hoc services rendered from 03.05.1982 to 17.02.1986

Whether the denial of the second ACP to the applicant constitutes discrimination given the case of G. Soudarchanane

The court primarily applied the ACP/MACP guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which stipulate that regular service for financial upgradation commences from the date of joining a post on a regular basis (direct recruitment, absorption, or re-employment), and service rendered on an ad hoc or contractual basis prior to regular appointment cannot be considered

Specifically, Para 5.2 of the ACP Scheme states that financial upgradation is reckoned from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit

Para 3.1 of the ACP Scheme provides that ad hoc and contract employees do not qualify for benefits under the ACP Scheme

The court also relied on the principle established in OP (CAT) No. 62 of 2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, which reiterated that ad hoc service cannot be counted for financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Schemes

The court found that the applicant's claim for the second ACP by regularizing his ad hoc service was contrary to the established ACP/MACP guidelines

These guidelines explicitly state that only regular service from the date of regular appointment counts for financial upgradation, excluding ad hoc or contractual service

The applicant had accepted the first ACP based on his regular service, thereby implicitly accepting the principle that ad hoc service is not considered

The court distinguished the applicant's case from G. Soudarchanane's, noting that Soudarchanane's regularization from the initial date was to rectify an anomaly where others similarly placed were regularized while he was not, which was not the situation for the applicant who was appointed on an ad hoc basis against leave vacancies

The High Court of Kerala's judgment in OP (CAT) No. 62 of 2022 further reinforced that ad hoc service does not qualify for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme

Therefore, there was no ground for discrimination as the circumstances were not comparable.

The court held that the applicant had failed to make a case for the grant of the second ACP, as ad hoc service cannot be counted for financial upgradation under the relevant ACP/MACP guidelines

The court found no discrimination, distinguishing the applicant's case from G. Soudarchanane's based on different circumstances of regularization

There was no order as to costs