Continuous State Government service must be counted for Central MACP benefits after absorption.

The applicant was initially appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the Haryana Government on an ad hoc basis on 02.07.1988, and her services were regularised with effect from 03.12.1990.

She joined the Rural Health Training Centre, Najafgarh, under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on deputation on 21.02.2006 and was permanently absorbed in Central Government service with effect from 18.03.2008.

The applicant had earlier been granted the first ACP benefit by the Haryana Government with effect from 01.01.2001.

After her absorption, the respondents counted only her Central Government service and granted her the first MACP financial upgradation with effect from 18.03.2018, treating her regular service as commencing from the date of absorption.

After the Tribunal directed the respondents in OA No. 2587/2021 to consider her representations, the respondents rejected her claim by a speaking order dated 22.02.2022, relying principally on paragraphs 9 and 10 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2019.

Whether the applicant’s regular service rendered under the Haryana Government, together with the relevant period of deputation, could be counted for determining her eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme?

Whether paragraph 10 of the MACP Scheme, excluding past service rendered under a State Government before appointment in the Central Government, could be relied upon to deny the applicant the benefit of such service?

Whether the applicant was entitled to the second and third MACP benefits, and consequential monetary benefits, on counting her service from 02.07.1988?

The Tribunal applied the DoPT MACP Scheme and the Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2019, particularly paragraph 9, under which regular service ordinarily commences from appointment to a post on a regular basis, while continuous regular service in another Central Government department may be counted.

Although paragraph 10 excluded past service rendered under a State Government, Statutory Body, Autonomous Body or Public Sector Organisation, the Tribunal relied on Kishan Lal v. Union of India, OA No. 279/2010, and Union of India v. D.K. Sharma, whose reasoning treated regular service rendered before absorption as countable for ACP/MACP purposes.

The Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Girbar Singh, WP(C) No. 1539/2016, held that once paragraph 10 had been struck down and that decision accepted, the clause ceased to exist for practical purposes and could not be selectively enforced against similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that continuous service initially rendered on an ad hoc basis and followed by regularisation without a break may be reckoned from the date of initial appointment.

The anti-stagnation and beneficial character of ACP/MACP schemes was further supported by the reasoning in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India, (1999) 2 SCC 119, and the liberal interpretation adopted in Kishan Lal.

The respondents had denied the applicant’s claim solely by relying on paragraph 10 of the MACP Scheme and by counting service only from her Central Government absorption on 18.03.2008.

The Tribunal held that this basis was no longer sustainable because the Delhi High Court in Girbar Singh had recognised that paragraph 10 had been quashed and was not available for denying the benefit to similarly situated employees.

The applicant’s Haryana service was treated as continuous regular service because, although her initial appointment was ad hoc, it was followed by regularisation without a break; the period of deputation was also relevant to the continuity of her service.

However, the Tribunal held that the first ACP granted by Haryana could not be restored because the applicant had voluntarily opted for a lower pay scale upon deputation and absorption in the Central Government.

On counting her service from 02.07.1988, the Tribunal determined that she was entitled to the second and third MACP benefits on completion of the requisite service periods.

The speaking order dated 22.02.2022 rejecting the applicant’s claim was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant the second MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 and the third MACP with effect from 02.07.2018, after counting her qualifying service from 02.07.1988.

She was also held entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.