UNION OF INDIA Vs. C. SREEKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed against the grant of first financial up-gradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) counting the ad hoc service of the applicant. We refer to the parties and the documents as are available in the original application.

(2.) The applicant was appointed as a Scientific Assistant on an ad hoc basis for various spells, evidenced by Annexures A3 and A4 series, the first commencing from 25.5.1994. The applicant claims the period from 3.10.1995, when he was appointed again on ad hoc basis, but against a clear vacancy as evidenced from Annexure A6, for the purpose of granting ACPS. The first up-gradation according to him falls due on 3.10.2007, on completion of 12 years. The Tribunal found that though ad hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of ACPS/MACPS (Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme), the temporary service which was regularised cannot be excluded from reckoning the total service.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel Sri. T.V. Vinu would contend that the Tribunal had misguided itself in drawing a distinction between ad hoc and temporary service especially when the scheme provided for regular service of 12 years and 24 years, in which an employee stagnates, for the purpose of financial up-gradation. The regular service as defined in the scheme also had to be interpreted, as capable of being reckoned as eligibility service counted for regular promotion in terms of regular recruitment/service rules. The learned CGSC, would also rely on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Union of India and others v. P.J. Mary [2011 (1) KHC 861].