UNION OF INDIA Vs. P J MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition is filed by the Central Institute of Fisheries challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam directing the petitioners to give ACP benefit (Assured Carrier Pregression) to the respondent reckoning her ad-hoc service as a Junior Clerk. We have heard Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Govindaswamy, advocate, appearing for the respondent.

(2.) Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners referred to the relevant portions of the service rules under which respondent's claim is to be considered. For easy reference, we extract hereunder Clauses 3.2,4 and 5.1 of the relevant service rules.

(3.) Admittedly, the respondent is entitled to 2nd ACP benefit under Clause 5.1 above on completion of 24 years of regular service. The short question to be considered is whether the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondent is a Junior Clerk from 9.11.1978 to 30.5.1984 should reckoned a regular service for granting ACP benefit. We notice that Clause 3.2 defining regular service for the purpose of counting ACP benefit is interpreted to mean the eligibility service counted for regular promotion in terms of relevant recruitment/service rules. Therefore, the service to be counted as regular service for the purpose of ACP benefit is the same as the regular service which could be counted under the relevant service rules for the purpose of promotion. In this context, we refer to the rules on promotion from the post of Junior Clerk to Storekeeper wherein experience prescribed for the purpose of promotion from Junior Clerk to Storekeeper is three years service as Junior Clerk. The contention raised by the respondent's counsel is that there is no mention of regular service in the relevant rules for the purpose of promotion from the cadre of Junior Clerk to Storekeeper and according to him, since regular service is not the experience required for the post, even ad-hoc service is sufficient. He has also relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in Union of India v. M. Mathivanan, 2006 SCC(L&S) 1271 and another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1990 SCC(L&S) 339) and also an unreported decision of this Court in Sajad A. v. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices and others (W.P.C. 10694/2004). However, after going through these judgments, we do not find that the issue decided pertaining to ACP benefit or the interpretation of "regular service" is for the purpose of granting ACP benefit. Respondent's counsel has specifically referred to the conclusions arrived at by the Constitution Bench in the second decision of the Supreme Court at Paragraph 47 wherein the Court held as follows: