Regular service in previous establishment must be reckoned for ACP/MACP benefits despite unilateral transfer under FR 15(a).

The applicants were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) in the Army cadre in 1990.

They were granted the 1st financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme in 2002 after completing 12 years of service.

Subsequently, both sought unilateral transfers on compassionate grounds to the Southern Naval Command under FR 15(a).

Their pay was protected in the new establishment, and they were later granted the 2nd Modified ACP (MACP) in 2010 and functional promotions to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in 2016.

In 2020, upon eligibility for the 3rd MACP, the Respondents (specifically the Area Accounts Office) objected, asserting that the applicants’ pay fixation was incorrect because "reversion fixation" (reverting to entry-grade pay) was not performed upon their unilateral transfer.

The Respondents argued that counting previous service for ACP/MACP in the new establishment resulted in a "double benefit".

1. Whether an employee on unilateral transfer under FR 15(a) is entitled to reckon previous service rendered in the parent establishment for the purpose of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP schemes.

2. Whether the financial upgradations granted in the previous establishment are liable to be protected in the new establishment despite the transfer being on a request basis.

Paragraph 14 of OM No. 35034/1/97-Estt (D) dated 09.08.1999, which expressly states that in cases of unilateral transfer, regular service rendered in the previous organization shall be counted for financial upgradation.

FR 15(a) regarding transfers and the DoPT Clarification dated 18.07.2001, which affirmed that even if an employee is appointed to a lower grade upon transfer, higher-post service counts toward ACP.

The Tribunal followed its own precedents in P.M. Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (O.A/124/2021) and Preetha K.G. v. Union of India (O.A/96/2022), which established that only seniority—not service benefits—is forfeited in unilateral transfers.

The Tribunal reasoned that while a unilateral transfer under FR 15(a) may lead to a loss of seniority, it does not result in the forfeiture of past service for the purpose of financial benefits under the ACP/MACP schemes.

The court rejected the Respondents' contention that protecting previous pay and counting service for MACP constituted a "double benefit." It noted that the ACP/MACP schemes are designed to alleviate stagnation, and the statutory guidelines (specifically the 1999 OM) explicitly direct that "regular service" includes time spent in previous organizations for transfer cases.

The Tribunal distinguished the Respondents' reliance on Vidhya Ravindran v. UOI, noting that the instant case did not involve an admitted mistake regarding reversion but rather a question of legal entitlement to continuous service benefits.

It held that the applicants are entitled to financial upgradations (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) by reckoning their entire service from their initial appointment dates. The court declared that the financial benefits granted in the previous establishment stand protected, and the respondents are directed to continue the pay and allowances accordingly.