Ad-hoc service preceding regular appointment is excluded from qualifying regular service for MACP Scheme benefits.

The 181 applicants are course-completed Act Apprentices who were initially engaged as ‘Khalasi’ (Group D) on a temporary/ad hoc basis starting in 1978 due to a lack of vacancies in Group C posts.

They were subsequently appointed as Skilled Grade III Artisans (Group C) against a 25% Direct Recruitment quota.

Under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme introduced by the 6th CPC, the applicants claimed three financial upgradations based on their regular entry into Group C.

However, the Railway respondents issued orders in 2011 treating their initial Group D engagement as the "Entry Grade" and their move to Group C as a "promotion," thereby reducing their MACP benefits and initiating recovery of "excess" pay.

The applicants successfully challenged this in a previous round of litigation (O.A. 1135/2012 & 1148/2012), where the Tribunal held that Group D service was ad hoc and Group C was the actual entry grade.

This was affirmed by the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 59 of 2014.

Despite these judgments, the respondents issued a Speaking Order on March 23, 2023, refusing to refund the deducted amounts, leading to the present application.

1. Whether the initial engagement of the applicants in Group D was ad hoc/temporary or regular service for the purposes of the MACP Scheme.

2. Whether the appointment to Skilled Grade III (Group C) was to be treated as a promotion or as Direct Recruitment.

3. Whether the respondents are liable to refund the amounts recovered from the applicants’ salaries following the judicial finality of the earlier proceedings.

Paragraph 9 of the MACP Scheme (RBE 101/2009), which stipulates that regular service for financial upgradation commences from the date of joining a post in the Direct Entry Grade on a regular basis, expressly excluding service rendered on an ad hoc or contract basis.

Para 159 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, 1989, regarding the recruitment of Artisan staff.

The principle of judicial finality, noting that once a decision by a Tribunal is upheld by a High Court (as in WPCT 59/2014) and remains unchallenged, it is binding on the parties.

The Tribunal observed that the core legal dispute—whether Group D service counted as "regular service"—had already been adjudicated in favor of the applicants in O.A. 1135/2012 and 1148/2012.

In those proceedings, the Tribunal found it "hardly believable" that an employee could be "promoted" from Group D to Group C within a week, concluding that the Group D stint was merely an ad hoc arrangement pending Group C vacancies.

The Hon'ble High Court, while dismissing the Railways' writ petition, clarified that "absorption" into Group C after ad hoc Group D service does not constitute a promotion under the MACP Scheme.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the High Court specifically held that the Railway's stand ran "counter to a normal course of affairs" and the MACP scheme vividly excludes temporary/ad hoc service, the respondents had no legal basis to withhold the recovered funds.

Consequently, the Speaking Order of 2023 was found to be in violation of settled judicial findings.

The respondents were directed to refund the entire amount recovered from the applicants' pay and allowances within four weeks.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the payment of interest at the prevailing savings bank rates from the date of recovery until the actual date of refund.

No order as to costs was made.