Facts
The applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) "in lieu of combatant" (ILC) on May 20, 1987
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4(i); p. 5, para. 7She was later absorbed as a regular Group 'C' employee and eventually retired as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on January 31, 2023
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2; p. 6, para. 10Although the respondents initially processed her case for the 3rd MACP financial upgradation effective from May 20, 2017—by counting her ILC service—the benefit was withheld by the CDA (Army) pending clarifications from the DoPT
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3(a); p. 6, para. 10During the pendency of the OA, the Ministry of Defence issued letters dated August 21 and 22, 2023, specifically listing the applicant (at Sr. No. 130) as eligible for ACP/MACP benefits by counting prior ILC service
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2; p. 7, para. 12Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated August 22, 2017, withholding benefits by excluding the service period rendered "in lieu of combatant" (ILC) for the purpose of ACP/MACP, is legally justified.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2Law Applied
It relied on MoD letters dated May 13, 2013, and August 21-22, 2023, which established that prior service rendered "in lieu of combatant" (ILC) must be counted for financial upgradations under ACP/MACP
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8; p. 6, para. 12Furthermore, the court followed the precedent set in All India Defence Civilian Clerks Association v. Union of India (OA 3409/2011) and Jiwan Singh Nayal v. Union of India, which mandated the inclusion of ILC service for ACP/MACP benefits, a position upheld by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 3479/2009
Source reference: p. 8, paras. 15-17Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the applicant's eligibility was no longer in dispute as the Ministry of Defence, Department of Military Affairs, had already issued specific instructions on August 21, 2023, to grant these benefits to 130 named employees, including the applicant
Source reference: p. 7, para. 12The court noted that the respondents had already granted similar benefits to other civilian employees in the same workshop, and the applicant's own 3rd MACP had been recommendation-ready since 2017 but was arbitrarily withheld
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9-10; p. 7, para. 14Since the Integrated Head Quarters (MoD) had explicitly directed that no further screening was required and that the Defence Finance AG had already concurred with the payment of arrears, there was no legal basis for the respondents to continue withholding the benefits
Source reference: p. 7, para. 13The court found the delay since 2017 unjustifiable given the settled legal position
Source reference: p. 8, para. 14Holding
The Tribunal allowed the OA, quashed the impugned order dated August 22, 2017, and decided the issue in favor of the applicant
The respondents were directed to grant the 3rd MACP benefits from the due date of entitlement by counting the LDC ILC service; the court ordered the payment of all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, allowances, and revised pensionary benefits, with interest at GPF rates
Source reference: p. 9, para. 20The relief must be implemented within three months, failing which further interest will apply in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Rajbir Singh v. MCD
Source reference: p. 9, para. 21Original Court PDF
Saroj YadavvsM/o Defence
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in