Reinstatement with continuity of service entitles an employee to benefits under ACP/MACP schemes, and denial of such benefits is unjustified.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-

1. Highlighting the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under :-

1.1 The applicant was appointed as a Conductor with the respondent on the daily basis in the year 1978 and was regularised in service on 25.04.1979 and was allotted B.No.12633. He continued to work satisfactorily with the respondent.

1.2 Vide charge sheet dated 17.05.1993, the applicant was alleged with the misconduct of not issuing tickets to passengers after collecting due fare and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was held guilty of misconduct. His service was then terminated by the respondent vide order dated 11.10.1994.

1.3 Consequently, the applicant raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication. The Ld. Labour Court vide order dated 10.07.2002 answered the preliminary issue in favour of the applicant and against the respondent, thereby holding that the departmental enquiry conducted against the applicant was against the principles of natural justice and as such vitiated. The Ld. Labour Court by order dated 04.10.2002 answered the reference in favour of the applicant and directed the respondent to reinstate the applicant with continuity of service and full back wages. Thereafter, the respondent challenged the award dated 04.10.2002 of the Labour Court before the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ petition being W.P (C) No.4620 of 2003. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15.12.2015, while deciding W.P (C) No.4620 of 2003, modified award dated 04.10.2002 to the extent that the applicant was entitled to 50% back wages instead of full back wages from the date of termination till retirement. The award of reinstatement with continuity of service was not interfered with.

1.4 The Legal Finance Committee of the respondent, in compliance of order of the High Court dated 28.12.2015, held that the applicant was deemed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service with 50% back wages.

1.5 The respondent, by its letter dated 28.04.2016, calculated the total length of service of the applicant as 32 years 9 months and 6 days i.e. from 25.04.1979 till 31.01.2012 for calculation of his payable dues and accordingly fixed his pay scale and calculated the amount of back wages, gratuity and pension etc. payable to him. However, the salary of the applicant was not fixed after giving him the benefit of the ACP scheme. Thus, the applicant was paid less amount than what he was entitled to. Therefore, by letter dated 28.10.2016, the applicant requested the respondent that since he had been granted continuity in service by the courts, he should be given the benefit of all the ACPs and MACP while fixing his salary and thereafter his arrears of salary, gratuity, pension and other benefits be calculated and paid. The applicant sent reminder dated 23.02.2017 requesting the respondent for full and proper compliance of order dated 15.12.2015 passed by hon'ble High Court, thereby, giving the benefit of continuity of service and to fix his pay scale after giving the benefit of ACP and MACP scheme. The respondent by a non-speaking order dated 25.04.2017 rejected the representation of the applicant and held him not entitled for grant of ACP/MACP.

1.6 Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.04.2017, the applicant has filed the present O.A., wherein he has been prayed for the following relief(s):

“((i) Quash order dt.25-4-2017 (Annexure-A.1);

(ii) direct the respondent to re-fix the salary of the applicant by giving him the benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP schemes;

(iii) direct the respondent to calculate the amount of arrears of salary, gratuity, leave encashment and pension etc. of the applicant based upon the pay scale as per prayer no.

(iv) above and to pay him the arrears of salary, gratuity, leave encashment and pension etc. with interest after adjusting the amount already paid.”

1.7 Learned counsel for the applicant added that the respo