Ad-hoc service is excluded from regular service for MACP; authorities may rectify erroneous pay fixations.

The applicant was initially engaged as a casual Gangman on October 7, 1972, and attained temporary status on January 1, 1981

He subsequently received ad-hoc promotions to the posts of Tracer (1985) and Assistant Draftsman (1990)

Following the introduction of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in 2009, the applicant was granted financial upgradation to Grade Pay (GP) ₹2800/- effective from September 1, 2008

However, the respondents later issued impugned orders dated December 7, 2011, and March 26, 2013, which reduced his grade pay to ₹1800/- and his MACP financial upgradation to GP ₹2000/-

The respondents contended that the applicant's prior promotions were ad-hoc, granted by incompetent authorities, and could not be counted as "regular service" for MACP benefits

1. Whether the service rendered by the applicant on an ad-hoc basis can be counted toward "regular service" for the purpose of granting financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme

2. Whether the respondents acted within their administrative competence in revising and reducing the applicant's pay and MACP benefits to rectify previous fixation errors

The Tribunal primarily applied the provisions of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, specifically Paragraph 9, which defines "Regular Service" as service commencing from the date of joining a post on a regular basis, and explicitly excludes service rendered on an ad-hoc or contract basis

The Tribunal further relied on the legal principle that administrative authorities possess the inherent competence to rectify their own mistakes in pay fixation and promotion when such errors are discovered

The Tribunal examined the nature of the applicant’s service and found that his promotions to Tracer and Assistant Draftsman were ad-hoc and not approved by the competent authority (Chief Personnel Officer), violating Railway Board instructions

Applying Paragraph 9 of the MACP Scheme, the Tribunal reasoned that "regular service" only includes time spent in a grade on a regular basis

Because the applicant's previous financial upgradation to GP ₹2800/- erroneously included his ad-hoc service periods, the respondents were justified in identifying this as an anomaly

The Tribunal concluded that since the department holds the primary responsibility for ensuring pay and promotions comply with the law, it was legally entitled to supersede its earlier erroneous orders and fix the applicant’s pay in accordance with his 23 years and 11 months of "regular" Group ‘D’ service

The Tribunal found no procedural or administrative infirmity in the impugned orders dated December 7, 2011, and March 26, 2013

The Original Application was dismissed, and all interim orders were discharged