IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON

07.01.2026 11.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Writ Petition No.34702 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.34663 of 2023

1.Union of India, The Under Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Parliament House, New Delhi – 110 001.

2.The Director, General Service Organization, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam – 603 102.

3.The Administrative Office-III, General Service Organization, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam – 603 102. ... Petitioners Vs

1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

2.K.V.Murugaraj

3.R.Durairaj ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent's Order dated 07.03.2023 in O.A.No.987 of 2015 to quash the same as illegal and invalid.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Deputy Solicitor General of India For R1 : Tribunal For RR2&3 : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 07.03.2023 in O.A.No.987 of 2015.

2. Heard Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 2 & 3 were granted Temporary status w.e.f., 01.09.1993 and their services were regularised on 06.10.1998, and had brought under the time scale of pay. The Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) was introduced w.e.f., 09.08.1999 and they were also granted the benefit, however their casual engagement and their temporary status services were not taken into account as per the scheme. He would submit that the said scheme only benefits employees' with regular service and not employees, who were either casually engaged or have been conferred with the temporary status. 50% of the casual labour service and 100% of the temporary status would only be counted for calculating the pensionary benefits and the same cannot be counted for conferring the benefits under the ACP Scheme. He would submit that the Tribunal without considering the same, had directed the petitioners' to count 50% of the casual labour service and 100% of the temporary status service for granting benefits of ACP/MACP Schemes by erroneously relying upon a coordinate bench judgment of the Tribunal at New Delhi. It also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which had held that the employees were only entitled to count their regular service for benefit of time bound promotion scales/promotion increment. Therefore, he seeks this Court indulgence with the order impugned in this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent on the other hand would submit that the respondents 2 & 3 had joined in the service as casual labourer in the year 1987 and they were also conferred with temporary status w.e.f., 01.09.1993 and thereafter appointed as a Lower Division Clerk w.e.f., 06.10.1998. He would submit that on being conferred with the temporary status they have also been granted with all other benefits available to a regular Group -D employees on the same rates including the entitlement for leave. He would submit that similar issue in respect of grant of benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme have been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi and had been held in favour of the employees. Hence, he would submit that there is no error in the orders impugned herein requiring indulgence by this Court and prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The lis that is to be resolve