Past project service cannot be included in promotion scheme calculations if explicitly excluded by scheme guidelines, as applicant opted for MBAPS based on regular appointment terms.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member (J))

The applicant has filed this application under section 19 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 seeking to quash the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.NIE/ESTT/PS-MBAPS/2019-20/244 dated 26.11.2019, and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the past services of the Applicant from 16.10.1986 to 31.05.1988 and grant all consequential benefits under the MBAPS Scheme with arrears and interest.

2. Briefly, the facts as stated by the applicant are that he was initially appointed as Statistical Assistant in the Field Unit of CJIL under a research project w.e.f. 16.10.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-15-500, which was subsequently revised to 1400-40-1800. In the year 1988, the CJIL Unit was transferred to CJIL, Agra, and therefore, he was once again appointed as statistical assistant from 01.06.1988, but without treating his service in the project from 16.10.1986 to 31.05.1988 as break in service. Though fresh appointment order was issued vide letter dated 06/03/1987, he was granted option of carrying over his accumulation of leave, general provident fund, group insurance scheme, hometown/LTC, which was available to him during his service in the project. His previous pay with increment was also carried forward and he was fixed in the pay of Rs.1440/-.

3. When the matters stood thus, the respondents in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 5710/2001, framed guidelines for implementing the Merit Based Assessment Promotion Scheme. As per the Scheme, the Technical Staff of the respondents were classified into 3 groups namely Group I, II and III. The Applicant being initially recruited with the qualification of post-graduation, was placed in Group-III of the MBAPS. Under the Scheme, the Applicant is entitled to Time Bound promotion on completion of every 5 years in service.

4. On receiving the option from the Applicant for implementation of MBAPS, applicant’s services were counted from 01.06.1988 and he was given five promotions and was placed in the post of Principal Technical Officer from 01.04.2014. However, his services from 1986 in the Field Unit of CJIL was not considered by the respondents under MBAPS even though it was considered and taken into account for all other purposes, including pension. Being aggrieved, the applicant gave a representation on 07/09/2017 to include his services rendered in the project from 1986, but the same was rejected by the respondents as per their letter dated 16/11/2017 wherein, it was stated that services rendered on regular basis alone would be counted under MBAPS scheme.

5. The applicant gave another representation addressed to the grievance committee constituted by the 3rd respondent, the competent authority, by placing reliance on the case of one Mr. N.K.S. Brahaspathi whose project services were included as regular service for grant of MACP/promotion/financial degradation benefit. Even though the grievance committee recommended for considering the applicant’s service in the project from 1986 as regular services on the same lines as Mr. N.K.S. Brahaspathi, the respondents have rejected the same on 11/09/2018, stating that Mr. N.K.S. Brahaspathi was given the benefit of MACP as per Hon’ble CAT order and the terms and conditions of MBAPS and MACP are different. Yet another representation dated 18/09/2018 given by the applicant was also rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 26/11/2019 and hence this OA is filed challenging the impugned