Adhoc service rendered in broken spells cannot be tagged with regular service for granting increments.

The Applicant, a retired Skipper from the Fishery Survey of India (FSI), commenced service as a Bosun on 05.01.1979

While holding the substantive post of Bosun, the applicant officiated as Mate Grade-I and Skipper on an ad-hoc basis for various short spells to meet organizational requirements

He was substantively promoted to Mate Grade-I on 05.06.1997 and to Skipper on 16.06.2005, eventually taking voluntary retirement on 01.05.2010

In 2019, the applicant submitted representations seeking advanced increments for the broken spells of ad-hoc service under Fundamental Rule (FR) 26, claiming parity with colleagues (Sri. V.J. Joseph and Sri. C.A. Gopi) who purportedly received such benefits

Following a direction from the Tribunal in a previous O.A. (542/2020) to consider his representation, the respondents rejected the claim via Annexures A10 and A11

The applicant challenged these orders, asserting that ad-hoc service should count toward increments upon regular promotion

1. Whether the Original Application is maintainable or barred by the law of limitation and the doctrine of stale claims

2. Whether broken spells of ad-hoc service in a higher post entitle an employee to additional increments in that higher post upon regular promotion under FR 26

3. Whether the denial of benefits constitutes discrimination in light of benefits allegedly granted to similarly situated employees

The Tribunal applied Fundamental Rule (FR) 26(c)(i), which dictates that officiating service in a higher post counts for increments in the lower substantive post, provided the servant would have officiated in the lower post but for the higher appointment

The Tribunal further relied on the Supreme Court precedents in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, which establish that stale claims cannot be revived by belated representations or subsequent court-ordered speaking orders

Additionally, the principle from State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association was applied, holding that ad-hoc service cannot be treated as regular service for the purpose of seniority or increments upon regular appointment

The Tribunal first addressed the threshold issue of limitation, noting that the cause of action arose during the applicant's substantive promotions in 1997 and 2005

The applicant failed to raise any claim until 2019, nine years after his retirement and over two decades after his first substantive promotion; the Tribunal held that a "hopelessly barred" claim cannot be resurrected by a fresh representation

On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the applicant's ad-hoc spells were brief, ranging from 10 to 100 days, and intended as stop-gap arrangements

Under FR 26(c)(i), such service only counts for increments in the lower scale (Bosun), which the respondents had already granted

The Tribunal further noted that the cases of Joseph and Gopi, cited by the applicant, were deemed "inappropriate fixations" by the department and did not create a legal right for the applicant to claim similar erroneous benefits

It held that the claim was strictly barred by limitation as the applicant failed to challenge his pay fixation at the time of his substantive promotions in 1997 and 2005

Furthermore, on merits, it ruled that ad-hoc service in higher posts does not entitle a government servant to count those periods for increments in the higher post's time scale upon regular promotion under the Fundamental Rules

No costs were ordered