Similarly situated Laboratory Attendants are entitled to equivalent pay-scale and ACP benefits, subject to eligibility.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Laboratory Attendant on a temporary basis on 2 February 1987 and was confirmed in that post with effect from 2 February 1992.

He was thereafter appointed as a Laboratory Technician on an ad hoc basis with effect from 13 June 1995 against an existing vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes, and continued in that capacity through successive extensions until 30 September 2006.

His appointment order expressly described the engagement as temporary and ad hoc against an ST-reserved vacancy.

The applicant was reverted to the post of Laboratory Attendant with effect from 30 September 2006 when steps were taken to fill the reserved Laboratory Technician post with an ST candidate. His pay was consequently refixed in the lower post.

Shri George Meshack, an ST candidate, was appointed against the reserved vacancy on 22 March 2007.

The applicant was subsequently considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and promoted as Laboratory Technician on 13 November 2007, joining the post on 14 November 2007.

The applicant challenged the reversion, sought regularisation of his ad hoc service, and alternatively claimed the pay scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000, first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme from 9 August 1999, and consequential refixation of pay.

An earlier dismissal of the Original Application was set aside by the Calcutta High Court, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication and permitted amendment of the reliefs.

1. Whether the applicant’s ad hoc service as Laboratory Technician from 13 June 1995 to 30 September 2006 could be treated as regular service so as to invalidate his reversion and confer continuity of service or regularisation?

2. Whether the applicant’s challenge to the order of reversion dated 7 October 2006, the pay refixation, and the relevant roster was barred by delay and laches?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled, on the principle of parity, to the pay scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000 and to first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, as extended to similarly situated Laboratory Attendants, including Shri George Meshack?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which service-related grievances may be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

It applied the principle that an employee appointed purely on an ad hoc or temporary basis against a vacancy reserved for a particular category cannot claim regularisation or continuity merely because the employee was permitted to continue for a long period, particularly where the appointment order expressly reserved the post and the employee accepted the terms.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of limitation, delay and laches, holding that a challenge to an order of reversion or pay refixation cannot ordinarily be entertained after an unexplained lapse of several years.

The applicant’s reliance on paragraph 53 of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was not accepted as a basis for regularisation in the circumstances of the case.

Finally, the Tribunal applied the principle of equal treatment in service benefits, holding that a similarly situated Laboratory Attendant who was subsequently promoted as Laboratory Technician could not receive a benefit denied to the applicant without a legally sustainable distinction.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s appointment as Laboratory Technician was expressly temporary, ad hoc, and against an ST-reserved vacancy; therefore, his long continuation did not alter the legal character of the appointment.

Since he had not challenged the terms of appointment, his reversion upon steps being taken to fill the reserved post could not be regarded as illegal.

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant accepted his subsequent promotion in 2007 and worked for approximately seven years before raising the grievance, while he had not timely challenged either the reversion or the earlier pay refixation.

Consequently, the claims for regularisation, continuity of the ad hoc period, quashing of the 2006 reversion order, and consequential arrears were treated as barred by delay and laches.

However, while examining the alternative claim, the Tribunal compared the applicant’s position with that of Shri George Meshack. Both had initially served as Laboratory Attendants and were thereafter promoted as Laboratory Technicians.

Since Meshack had been granted the benefit of the Rs. 4,000–6,000 pay scale under the departmental order dated 29 October 2010, the Tribunal found that the applicant was similarly entitled to that benefit.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant was entitled to consideration for first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completing twelve years of service as Laboratory Attendant in 1999, together with consequential MACP-related benefits, subject to his otherwise satisfying the applicable eligibility conditions.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim for regularisation or continuity of his ad hoc Laboratory Technician service, declined to interfere with his reversion dated 30 September 2006, and held that the challenge to the reversion and related orders was delayed and barred by limitation and laches.

However, it directed that the applicant be extended the benefit of the Rs. 4,000–6,000 pay scale on parity with similarly situated Laboratory Attendants, and that he be granted first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme from the date he completed twelve years of service, along with consequential MACP benefits if otherwise eligible.

There was no order as to costs.