Retrospective recruitment rules treating appointments as direct recruitment preclude counting prior service for ACP and MACP benefits.

The applicant was appointed as a Field Assistant (Driver) (Non-matriculate) in the Aviation Research Centre (ARC) on July 8, 1988

Following a cadre review and the notification of Recruitment Rules (RRs) in 1989 and 1994, the applicant was regularized as a Senior Field Assistant (SFA) (Motor Transport) effective June 3, 1994

In 2004, the respondents retrospectively amended the RRs to treat the 1994 appointment as "direct recruitment" rather than "promotion" to align with benefits given to similarly placed employees in the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW)

Consequently, the applicant’s Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits were calculated from the 1994 "direct recruitment" date

The applicant sought to include his prior service (1988–1994) for these benefits, claiming parity with R&AW employees based on a One-Man Committee Report

1. Whether the service rendered by the applicant prior to his regularization/direct recruitment in 1994 should be counted for the purpose of granting ACP and MACP benefits

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim pay parity with similarly designated employees in R&AW based on the One-Man Committee Report

The court primarily applied the principle that the fixation of pay scales and the removal of pay anomalies fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive and Pay Commissions, as established in Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, which cautioned Tribunals against interfering with pay scales without evidence of hostile discrimination

The court also considered the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution, as discussed in V.K. Mehta v. Union of India, but noted that this requires proof of identical recruitment rules, qualifications, and duties

Furthermore, the court adhered to the principle that unchallenged recruitment rules and their retrospective amendments are binding on the parties

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to challenge the 2004 retrospective amendment to the RRs, which explicitly designated the June 3, 1994, appointment as "direct recruitment"

This legal designation created a fresh starting point for the calculation of ACP/MACP benefits, rendering the service between 1988 and 1994 ineligible for such financial upgrades

Regarding parity with R&AW, the Tribunal observed that ARC and R&AW are distinct organizations governed by different recruitment rules and service conditions

The applicant provided no evidence to substantiate that his duties, educational qualifications, and recruitment processes were identical to those in R&AW; mere similarity in designation is insufficient to claim pay parity

The Tribunal reiterated that pay restructuring is a policy matter, noting that a High-Level Committee had already rejected the applicability of the R&AW-specific One-Man Committee Report to ARC employees

The claim for parity with R&AW was rejected due to the organizational and regulatory differences between the two entities

The Tribunal suggested that the applicants may place their grievances before the 8th Pay Commission through appropriate channels for any future recommendations

No order was made as to costs