Unchallenged retrospective recruitment rules establishing direct recruitment status preclude counting prior service for financial benefits.

The lead applicant was appointed as a Field Assistant (Driver) (Non-matriculate) [FA (MT)] in the Aviation Research Centre (ARC) on 08.07.1988

Following a cadre review and the issuance of Recruitment Rules (RRs) in 1989 and 1994, the applicant was regularized as a Senior Field Assistant (MT) [SFA (MT)] effective 03.06.1994

Through a retrospective amendment to the RRs notified on 07.12.2004, the appointment to SFA (MT) was treated as "direct recruitment" rather than "promotion" to facilitate financial upgrades

Consequently, the applicant was granted the 1st ACP in 2006 and the 2nd MACP in 2014, counting service from 03.06.1994

The applicants sought to count their prior service (1988–1994) for ACP/MACP benefits, claiming parity with drivers in the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) based on a "One-Man Committee" report

The respondents rejected this representation on 31.08.2016, citing different recruitment conditions and RRs between ARC and R&AW

1. Whether the service rendered by the applicants as Field Assistant (MT) prior to their direct recruitment as SFA (MT) in 1994 should be counted for the grant of ACP and MACP benefits

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to pay and service benefit parity with similarly designated employees in the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) based on the One-Man Committee Report

The court primarily applied the ARC/SFF (Motor Transport Executive Cadre) Rules, 1988, as amended by the Notification dated 07.12.2004, which retrospectively classified the 1994 appointments as direct recruitment

It relied on the principle that pay fixation and the removal of anomalies are executive functions, traditionally handled by Pay Commissions and Anomaly Committees

The Tribunal further applied the precedent from Union of India & Anr. v. P.V. Hariharan & Anr. (1997), which cautioned against judicial interference in prescribed pay scales unless a clear case of "hostile discrimination" is established, noting that Tribunals are not the proper authority for pay fixation

The Tribunal observed that the applicants had not challenged the 2004 retrospective amendment to the RRs, which explicitly treated their 1994 appointment as the starting point for service as "direct recruits"

Since this starting point was accepted, the period from 1988 to 1994 could not be counted for ACP/MACP purposes, although it might count for pensionary benefits

Regarding parity with R&AW, the Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide evidence that their recruitment rules, educational qualifications, and duties were identical to those in R&AW; mere similarity in designation is insufficient to claim parity

Citing P.V. Hariharan, the Tribunal emphasized that interfering with pay scales has a "cascading effect" and is a serious matter better left to Pay Commissions

The Tribunal noted that the 8th Pay Commission has already been constituted, providing an appropriate executive forum for such grievances

It further held that pay parity is a policy decision falling within the executive domain, and the applicants failed to prove hostile discrimination

The applicants were advised to place their grievances before the appropriate Anomaly Committee or the 8th Pay Commission

No order as to costs was made