Unchallenged "break in service" order precludes re-evaluation for financial upgradation benefits.

The applicant, Smt. Saroj Gupta, joined the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as a Mate (Work Charge) on 08.06.1984.

She remained absent from duty from 01.12.1987 to 20.06.1998.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her on 27.05.1999 for unauthorized absence.

The Inquiry Officer (IO) found the charges not proven.

However, the disciplinary authority, the Executive Engineer WD-13, vide order dated 10.10.2001, exonerated her but treated the absence period from 01.12.1987 to 20.06.1998 as "extra ordinary leave with break in service for all purposes".

This order was not challenged by the applicant.

Subsequently, the Commissioner-P, DDA, approved her consideration as Work Charge (Regular) w.e.f. 21.06.1998.

The applicant's service was regularized with effect from 21.06.1998.

She was granted selection grade on completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 21.06.2006.

She was then allowed the second financial upgradation w.e.f. 21.06.2018.

The applicant sought to count her service from 1984 for ACP and MACP benefits and regularization, arguing that the EOL period should not be treated as a break in service.

She filed the present OA seeking the grant of 1st ACP from 09.08.1999 and re-structuring of subsequent ACP/MACP, withdrawing the impugned orders dated 04.09.2018 and 29.09.2018.

Whether the period of Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) with break in service from 01.12.1987 to 20.06.1998, as ordered by the disciplinary authority on 10.10.2001, should be overlooked for the purpose of granting ACP and MACP benefits from her initial joining date in 1984?

Whether the applicant is entitled to the 2nd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme from 22.06.2016 instead of 21.06.2018?

The court referred to Regulation Clause 32A of the DDA-Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1994, which outlines orders against which an appeal lies, including those concerning penalties or adversely affecting service conditions.

It also considered the DOP&T OM dated 18.07.2001 (Point 54), which clarifies that all kinds of leave count towards regular service for financial upgradations under ACPS.

Additionally, Clause 11 of the MACP Scheme states that 'Regular service' includes periods spent on deputation/foreign service, study leave, and all other sanctioned leave.

Finally, the court referenced Clause 28A(i) & (ii) of Annexure-I of the MACP Scheme regarding eligibility for the 2nd financial upgradation.

The court acknowledged that the disciplinary authority, despite the IO's exoneration, treated the applicant's absence from 01.12.1987 to 20.06.1998 as EOL with a "break in service for all purposes" via the order dated 10.10.2001.

Crucially, the applicant never challenged this 2001 order under Regulation Clause 32A of the DDA-Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1994, which allows for appeals against orders adversely affecting service conditions.

As the 2001 order was not under challenge and remained status quo, the court refrained from examining its maintainability.

Consequently, the court upheld the respondents' decision to regularize the applicant's service from 21.06.1998, as it was based on the undisturbed condition of a break in service for the earlier period.

The court found that without challenging the 10.10.2001 order, the applicant's claim for ACP/MACP benefits dating back to 1984 by applying the DoP&T clarification (OM dated 18.07.2001) was not acceptable.

However, applying the MACP Scheme, the court noted that the applicant, having been regularized from 21.06.1998 and granted selection grade on 21.06.2006 (after 8 years), was entitled to the 2nd financial upgradation after 18 years of regular service from her regularization date, which would be 22.06.2016, not 21.06.2018 as granted by the respondents.

The applicant is entitled to receive arrears of pay and other consequential benefits arising from this pre-dating of the 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

This exercise was to be completed within eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The court explicitly refused to overturn the order dated 10.10.2001, which established a break in service, since it was not challenged by the applicant.