In-service training constitutes qualifying service for financial upgradation; recovery from retired employees is legally impermissible.

The Applicant was appointed as a Weigh Bridge Clerk on 22.10.1982

He underwent in-service training from 21.06.1983 to 30.09.1983 and was subsequently posted to a working post on 05.11.1983

He received promotions to Senior Goods Clerk (1988), Head Goods Clerk (2008), and Chief Goods Supervisor (2015) before retiring on 30.06.2019

Post-retirement, the Respondents issued an order on 20.09.2019 for the recovery of alleged overpayments and, on 24.02.2020, rejected his representation for the 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations under the ACP and MACP schemes

The Applicant challenged these orders, contending that his in-service training should be counted toward qualifying service and that recovery from a retired employee is legally impermissible

1. Whether in-service training should be computed as qualifying service for the purpose of granting financial upgradations under the ACP and MACP schemes

2. Whether the recovery of overpayments from a retired employee is permissible in light of established judicial precedents

3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations effective from 22.10.2006 and 22.10.2012

The Tribunal applied the precedent from the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.C No. 16565/2016, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which mandates that in-service training must be computed as qualifying service for ACP/MACP benefits

Regarding recovery, the court relied on the "hardship" situations identified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which prohibits recoveries from retired employees

It further adopted the reasoning of the CAT Principal Bench in OA No. 1288/2014 (affirmed by the Delhi High Court), which held that employees should not suffer a loss of service benefits due to the delayed implementation of the MACP scheme

East Coast Railway’s order dated 16.02.2026, which directs the refund of recoveries made due to wrong pay fixations

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s training was "in-service" rather than "pre-appointment," distinguishing it from the training periods excluded by RBE Nos. 257/04 and 101/09

Following the Orissa High Court's ruling, the Tribunal determined this period must count toward the 12/24/30 years of regular service

Regarding the 3rd MACP benefit, the Tribunal applied the OA 1288/2014 logic: since the Applicant completed the requisite service years, the benefit should be granted from the actual date of eligibility (20 years from the first promotion) rather than being restricted by the scheme's formal commencement date

The recovery order was deemed unsustainable because the Applicant is a retired employee (protected by Rafiq Masih) and because the Respondents’ own recent policy (16.02.2026) expressly provides for the refund of such recoveries

The Respondents were directed to grant the 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations under ACP and MACP effective from 22.10.2006 and 22.10.2012, respectively

The court ordered the Respondents to refund any recovered amounts and pay all consequential financial benefits, including arrears of salary and pensionary benefits, within 60 days of the receipt of the order