### Past Service in Statutory Corporations Counts Towards Career Progression Benefits Upon Government Absorption Post-Closure

The seven petitioners were formerly employees of the Assam State Minor Irrigation Development Corporation (ASMIDC). Upon the closure of ASMIDC in 2003, they were absorbed into the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam, via notification dated 13.05.2005.

While they waived seniority in the new department, they were granted pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(1) and eligibility for pension.

Subsequently, the petitioners were granted financial benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme (2011) and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme (2017).

Years later, the Accountant General and the Irrigation Department raised objections, citing clauses in the ACP/MACP notifications that exclude past service in PSUs/Statutory bodies for calculating "regular service".

Consequently, the petitioners' regular pension was withheld pending clarification on whether their ASMIDC service could be counted for ACP/MACP benefits.

1. Whether past services rendered in a public sector undertaking (ASMIDC) prior to absorption into a Government Department should be counted for the purpose of granting benefits under the ACP and MACP Schemes.

2. Whether the respondent authorities are legally permitted to withdraw ACP/MACP benefits and re-fix pay/pension after the employees have superannuated.

Clause 5(XXIX) of the ACP Scheme (2011) and Clause B(X) of the MACP Scheme (2017), which define "regular service" for financial upgradation.

Principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Deepak Sood, which holds that if past service in a PSU is counted for pay fixation and pension upon absorption, it cannot be arbitrarily excluded for ACP benefits.

Restrictive criteria for recovery of excess payments from retired employees as laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer).

The court reasoned that the ACP and MACP schemes were designed to alleviate stagnation in service.

The court distinguished between employees who voluntarily migrate to government service for career advancement and those, like the petitioners, who were absorbed due to the closure of their parent organization.

The court observed that since the Government had already recognized the petitioners' past service for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits and pay fixation at the time of absorption, it was contradictory and inequitable to exclude that same period when calculating "stagnancy" for financial upgradation.

The court noted that the benefits were granted nearly a decade ago without any misrepresentation by the petitioners; thus, attempting to revise their pay post-retirement would be "iniquitous and harsh," especially since similarly situated employees continued to receive such benefits.

The Court quashed the attempts to revisit their entitlements and restrained the respondents from making any recoveries.

The Court directed the respondent authorities to finalize and release the regular pension and all remaining retirement benefits based on the last drawn pay (inclusive of ACP/MACP) within three months.

The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioners.