Regularization date, unchallenged for years, determines eligibility for ACP/MACP benefits.

The applicant, Raghubir Singh, was appointed as a Peon on a temporary basis on January 23, 1981, at the Project Coordinator, Indo-Swiss Bilateral Project, Sericulture, New Delhi.

His post was temporary, and he was on probation for two years.

Following an award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, dated September 9, 1987, the respondents regularized the applicant's service retroactively from September 9, 1987, via an order dated February 10, 1989.

The period from January 23, 1981, to September 8, 1987, was counted for pensionary purposes.

The applicant received his 1st ACP on September 9, 1999, and subsequently 2nd and 3rd MACP benefits, all calculated from his regularization date of September 9, 1987.

An audit objection dated September 24, 2015, noted a disparity in his pay fixation compared to a junior employee, Sh. Komaraiah.

The applicant retired on July 31, 2019.

He seeks directives for re-fixation of his pay and benefits, including ACP/MACP from January 23, 1981, aligning with the benefits provided to his junior, Sh. Komaraiah.

The applicant never challenged the regularization order of February 10, 1989, which fixed his regularization date as September 9, 1987.

Whether the period of the applicant's service from January 23, 1981, to September 8, 1987, should be counted for granting ACP and MACP benefits.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the same ACP/MACP benefits as Sh. Komaraiah, despite differences in their service conditions and regularization dates.

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the ACP scheme (DOP&T OM dated August 9, 1999) and the MACP scheme (DOP&T OM dated May 9, 1999).

Both schemes explicitly state that casual employees, including those with temporary status, ad hoc, and contractual employees, shall not qualify for benefits under these schemes.

The Tribunal also acknowledged the principle that an unchallenged order of regularization stands as final.

The court found that the applicant's service was regularized effective September 9, 1987, by an unchallenged order dated February 10, 1989.

The period prior to this regularization, from January 23, 1981, to September 8, 1987, was correctly treated as temporary or ad hoc, as his initial appointment was temporary to a project.

According to the DOP&T OMs for ACP and MACP schemes, temporary or ad hoc service does not qualify for these benefits.

Therefore, the respondents appropriately granted ACP/MACP benefits calculating from the date of his regularized service, i.e., September 9, 1987.

Regarding the comparison with Sh. Komaraiah, the court noted that the conditions of service, initial appointment, and regularization circumstances of Sh. Komaraiah were not provided, making a direct comparison to establish similar situations impossible.

The Tribunal held that the period before the applicant's regularization (January 23, 1981, to September 8, 1987) could not be counted for ACP and MACP benefits because his service during that time was temporary/ad hoc, and the relevant schemes explicitly exclude such service.

The regularization order of February 10, 1989, which established the regularization date as September 9, 1987, was held to be final as it was never challenged.

The claim for parity with Sh. Komaraiah was rejected due to insufficient information regarding Sh. Komaraiah's service conditions.

No order was made as to costs, and pending MAs were disposed of.