Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE two writ applications are directed against the order dated 7th March, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for short), dismissing the Original Applications by the same order as the controversy raised therein was same and identical. Accordingly, both the writ applications have been taken up for adjudication by this common order.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are: that the petitioners -applicants were appointed on the post of Laboratory Assistant(s) in the year 1986 -87, on regular basis, in the Regional Office of Health and Family Welfare, Rajasthan, Government of India, in the pay scale of Rs. 260 -430 along with other admissible allowances. Government of India, vide communication dated 29th September, 1995, integrated the Malariya Operational Field Research Scheme (herein after referred to as the 'MOFRS', for short) with National Malariya Eradication Programme (hereinafter referred to as the 'NMEP', for short). As a consequence the petitioners were transferred from MOFRS to NMEP in the same pay and allowances as admissible prior to their transfer. The petitioners were accorded benefits of pay fixation as per mandate of Fundamental Rule (FR) 22(1)A(1) owing to implementation of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP). In view of Recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) was introduced and the petitioners were accorded benefits treating them employees on regular basis w.e.f. 1986 -87. However, the benefits were withdrawn vide order 5th April, 2013, with reference to the employees of the erstwhile MOFRS with a further direction to effect recovery of excess payment made. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order withdrawing the benefits of MACPS as well as recovery; dismissing the Original Applications vide impugned order dated 7th March, 2014.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ applications as well as the stand before the Tribunal in the Original Applications, argued that the impugned order dated 7th March, 2014 passed by the Tribunal, is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal committed gross error as it lost sight of the provisions of MACP Scheme. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in accepting the plea of the respondent -Government of India that the controversy stands concluded by the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, on the identical issue. The learned counsel made an attempt to draw a difference between two schemes i.e. Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), with reference to the criteria for determination of 'regular service' under the two schemes being different and distinct. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners in ACPS only those services are counted where the employees rendered the services accountable for promotion whereas it is not so in case of MACPS, and the Tribunal completely lost sight of this aspect. Moreover, the initial appointment of the petitioners was a regular appointment in the year 1986 -87, on the post of Laboratory Assistant(s), and they were also accorded protection of benefits of regular scale of pay in the year 1995 when the two schemes i.e. MORFS and NMEPS, were integrated. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 444 -450 of 2002} Union of India Vs. C.B. Gangdharia & Others, dealt with matters of ACPS while holding that those employees would be entitled to get benefit only from the date of absorption.;