Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Order reserved on : 10.12.2025 Order pronounced on: 06.01.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

MANOHAR LAL, Son of Shri Chander Singh, Aged 63 years, Resident of Village Begpur (Ateli), PO Gokalpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

...Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Nikhil Purohit for Shri Rohit Sharma)

Versus

1. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

2. DEPOT MANAGER, DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EAST VINOD NAGAR DEPOT, NEW DELHI-110091.

...Respondents (By Advocate : Shri Umesh Joshi through VC)

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(a) Quash the order dated 29.02.2016 issued by the Respondent No.2; and (b) Direct the Respondents to grant the 3rd ACP benefits to the Applicant with effect from

10.07.2009; and (c) Direct the Respondents to discontinue the deduction of amount from the salary of the Applicant; and (d) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. ”

2. Factual matrix of the case is as follows:

2.1 The applicant joined as Driver on regular basis with the respondents on 10.01.1979. The respondents adopted the ACP scheme in the year 1999 and as per Digitally signed by the claim of the applicant, he should have got the first RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

ACP w.e.f the date on which the ACP scheme was

adopted by the respondents. According to the

applicant, 2^nd ACP was due in the year 2003 and he

was entitled to get 3^rd MACP after completion of 30

years of service w.e.f 10.07.2009. However, the respondents granted 1^st and 2^nd ACP on 01.04.2006 and the 3^rd ACP on 10.07.2009, which has been mentioned in para 7 of the order dated 05.01.2010 in TA/1457/2009. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly submitted that the applicant was initially terminated from service w.e.f 09.02.1996 and subsequently Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 23.09.1999 in W.P. No.3616/1996 quashed the termination order and the applicant was reinstated into service immediately after the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Subsequently, the respondents again terminated the services of the applicant on 11.05.2000 and thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court and Labour Court and there was settlement dated 31.03.2003 and the applicant was taken back into the service. As per the settlement, the period of absence from duty i.e. from 11.05.2000 to 31.03.2003 was directed to be treated as dies non. The applicant approached the respondents to get all Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR

respondents did not accede to his request.

2.2 Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.7982/2005

and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 28.08.2009 transferred the case to this Tribunal which was renumbered as TA No.1457/2009. The said TA was decided vide order dated 05.01.2010. Para 7 of the said order dated 05.01.2010, reads as under:

“ 7. Now we may go in for more details. Full pay and revised pay from the eligible period after pay revision should be disbursed to him, if not already done. Definition of wages, as appearing in Section 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes bonus. Therefore, a claim for bonus may not be sustainable. The applicant may not also be entitled to uniform allowances since he was not actually rendering duties. But the back wages as if he was continuing in service cannot be denied to him. The ACP benefits also thus were payable taking the above period as spent on duty. On his actual reinstatement in the year 2003, as he had forgone only the back wages payable from 11.05.2000 to 31.03.2003, the earlier fixation that might have been admissible on the basis of his notional pay, could not