Shortfall in qualifying service due to dies non precludes financial upgradation under an expired scheme.

The Applicant joined as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 26.07.1984

Under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme (09.08.1999), employees were entitled to financial upgradations after 12 and 24 years of regular service

The ACP Scheme was replaced by the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme effective 01.09.2008

The Applicant claimed he completed 24 years of service on 31.08.2008

However, the Respondents treated 37 days of the Applicant’s service as dies non due to his participation in a strike

Consequently, the Respondents calculated that the Applicant was short by one day (completing 23 years and 364 days) as of 31.08.2008, making him ineligible for the 2nd upgradation under the ACP Scheme

The Applicant challenged the denial of the ACP benefit and sought parity with a colleague, Bal Krishan Pandey, who purportedly received the benefit despite similar circumstances

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the 2nd financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme as of 31.08.2008, despite falling one day short of the 24-year requirement due to a dies non period

2. Whether the legal principles regarding notional increments established in Director (Adin And HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani are applicable to the completion of qualifying service for ACP

3. Whether the Applicant can claim the benefit of the ACP Scheme based on the principle of equality if another employee was granted the same benefit

The Tribunal applied the ACP Scheme (1999) and MACP Scheme (2008), which stipulate strict time-bound eligibility criteria (24 years for the 2nd ACP) for financial upgradations

It relied on the administrative doctrine of dies non, which excludes periods of unauthorized absence from "regular service" for the purpose of calculating seniority and benefits

Furthermore, the Tribunal invoked the Principle of Negative Equality, asserting that Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit a party to claim a benefit based on an illegality or error committed in favor of another person

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant approached the court with "unclean hands" by failing to disclose that his 37-day absence was treated as dies non

By excluding these 37 days, the Applicant only completed 24 years on 01.09.2008—the date the ACP Scheme expired and was replaced by MACP

The Tribunal rejected the application of C.P. Mundinamani, distinguishing that the cited precedent concerned notional increments for employees retiring the day after earning them, whereas the current case involved a statutory cutoff for a defunct scheme

Regarding the claim of parity, the Respondents clarified that the case of Bal Krishan Pandey was processed before the implementation of the MACP Scheme

Regardless, the Tribunal held that even if the Respondents had erroneously granted a benefit to another, the Applicant could not claim a similar erroneous benefit under the principle of negative equality

Consequently, he was only eligible for benefits under the MACP Scheme, which he had already been granted

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application (OA) for lack of merit

No order as to costs was passed