Post-appointment training before regularisation counts as qualifying service for MACP benefits.

The respondents, Junior Engineers in the Railways, were appointed and then sent for training before being regularised.

The Railway authorities excluded that post-appointment training period when calculating qualifying service for Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed their application, directing that the training period be counted, subject to the respondents’ eligibility under the Scheme.

The Union of India challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court.

1. Whether training undertaken after appointment but before regularisation must count as qualifying service for MACP benefits.

2. Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme applies to the respondents’ claims under the MACP Scheme.

Clause 9 of the Annexure to the Railway Board circular dated 10 June 2009 provides that regular service for MACP purposes commences from joining a post in the direct-entry grade on a regular basis, and excludes service rendered on an ad hoc or contractual basis before regular appointment, including pre-appointment training; it does not expressly exclude training undertaken after appointment but before regularisation.

In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Barik, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with High Court orders where employees received regular pay and increments from the outset, holding that the post-appointment training period could not be excluded under the ACP policy.

The judgment also referred to the principle that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive equal treatment, subject to exceptions such as delay, laches, or acquiescence.

The respondents’ training occurred after appointment, not before appointment, and their pre-regularisation service was neither ad hoc nor contractual.

The High Court therefore held that Clause 9 did not bar counting that period: its exclusion concerned pre-appointment training and specified forms of service, not post-appointment training before regularisation.

The Court further considered the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Ashok Kumar Barik—including that training followed appointment—and rejected the distinction based solely on the fact that the earlier case concerned ACP rather than MACP.

It affirmed the Tribunal’s judgment in its entirety and dismissed the writ petition in limine.