Retrospective regularization requires available sanctioned vacancies; adhoc service is excluded from qualifying service for financial upgradation.

The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on an adhoc basis on March 4, 1992

In a previous writ petition (CW No. 1523/1997), the Delhi High Court directed on December 19, 2001, that the applicant be considered for regularization against a sanctioned post "as and when the same is available" and that his past service be counted for future promotion

Consequently, the respondent (DTC) regularized the applicant’s service on October 15, 2010, effective from January 22, 2009—the date a regular vacancy became available

He was later promoted to Senior Manager (Electrical) on December 1, 2012

The applicant filed the present Original Application (O.A.) challenging a rejection letter dated July 29, 2015, seeking retrospective regularization from 1992 and consequential benefits, including ACP/MACP, alleging discrimination compared to another employee, Shri V.N. Patil

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective regularization from the date of his initial adhoc appointment on March 4, 1992

2. Whether the denial of retrospective regularization constitutes illegal discrimination vis-à-vis similarly placed employees like Shri V.N. Patil

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to ACP/MACP benefits by counting his adhoc service prior to regularization

The Tribunal applied the principle that regularization in government service is contingent upon the availability of a sanctioned, regular vacancy

It further relied on the legal standard for parity under Article 14, which requires identical factual circumstances; the principle of equality cannot be invoked where material distinctions exist between employees

Regarding financial upgradation, the Tribunal applied the service rule that adhoc or contract service does not qualify for benefits under the ACP or MACP Schemes and cannot be reckoned for such purposes unless regularized

The Tribunal found that at the time of the applicant's adhoc appointment in 1992, no sanctioned regular vacancy existed

Per the 2001 High Court direction, regularization was only required once a post became available, which occurred on January 22, 2009

The Tribunal distinguished the case of Shri V.N. Patil, noting that Patil was regularized retrospectively because a regular vacancy had existed at the time of his initial appointment, whereas no such vacancy existed for the applicant

Regarding promotion, the Tribunal noted that the DTC had already complied with the High Court's mandate by counting the applicant’s past service to grant him a promotion to Senior Manager in 2012

Regarding financial upgradation, the Tribunal reasoned that since adhoc service cannot be counted for MACP and the applicant’s regular service only commenced in 2009, he did not complete the requisite 10-year qualifying period post-promotion before his retirement in 2020

The court answered that: (1) retrospective regularization is not permissible in the absence of a sanctioned vacancy at the time of initial appointment; (2) no discrimination occurred as the cited parity lacked identical factual foundations; and (3) adhoc service cannot be reckoned for ACP/MACP benefits

The respondents' actions were found to be legally justified and in substantial compliance with previous judicial directions

No order as to costs was made