U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vs Amar Nath Maurya and Another

Learned counsel for the applicants has pressed the application for substitution seeking substitution of legal heirs and representatives of respondent no. 1, who died on 26.07.2025.

¶10

Perused the substitution application.

¶11

The application for substitution seeking substitution of legal heirs of respondent no. 1, is allowed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to make necessary incorporation in the memo of writ petition during course of the day.

¶13

Order on Writ Petition

¶14

Heard Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.

¶15

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12.03.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 187 of 2013, whereby the original application has been allowed and respondent no. 1 has been granted benefit of Second Modified Assured Career Progression

¶16

WRIA No. 9622 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

Scheme ( hereinafter referred to as "the MACP Scheme" ) counting the service from the date of actual joining of the post in the entry grade with all consequential benefits.

¶19

It is the case of the respondent that initially he was appointed on 01.08.1979 on the post of Laboratory Attendant on regular basis thereafter vide Office Order dated 13.01.1993, he was offered the temporary post of General Duty Assistant in the Drug Standardization Research Unit of Central Council for Research In Unani Medicine, Lucknow on ad-hoc basis for the period of six months or till a regularly appointed candidate joins the post, whichever is earlier, which was accepted by respondent no. 1, and vide office order dated 06.04.1993, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months. Thereafter the term of the respondent as ad-hoc appointee was extended from time to time and ultimately the respondent no. 1 was regularized vide order dated 20.12.1997 with effect from 15.10.1997.

¶20

The Respondent no.1 was given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme ( hereinafter referred to as 'ACP' ) which was introduced with order dated 9.8.1999 on completion of 12 years of service on 13.1.2005 counting his ad-hoc service vide office order dated at 29.9.2005.

¶21

The Government of India vide order dated 19.5.2009 introduced MACP Scheme which provided the benefits on completion of 10 years 20 years and 30 years of services to all classes of employees of Group - A,Group-B and Group-C except officers of Organised Group “A” service.

¶22

The Respondent no.1 completed his 20 years of service including adhoc services on 13.1.2014 on the post of General Duty Assistant and became entitled for 2^nd MACP which was denied vide order dated 19.11.2012 on the ground that service rendered on ad-hoc / contractual basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training can not be taken into reckoning relying on paragraph 9 of the MACP scheme. For ready reference, paragraph 9 of the MACP Scheme is quoted herein below:-

¶23

" 9. 'Regular service' for the purposes of the MACP shall commence from

¶24

WRIA No. 9622 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-employment basis. Service rendered on adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning. However, past continuous regular service in anther Government Department in a post carrying same grade pay, prior to regular appointment in a view Department, without a break, shall also be counted towards qualifying regular service for the purpose of MACPS only (and not for the regular promotions). However, benefits under the MACPS in such cases shall not be considered till the satisfactory completion of the probation period in the new post. "

¶27

The Respondent no.1 feeling aggrieved filed O.A NO 187 Of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order dated 19.11.2012 and claimed the benefits of 2^nd MACP counting his ad-hoc services which has been allowed with judgement and order dated 12.3.2024 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶28

The respondent no. 1 relied upon the clarification issued by means of Office Memorandum dated 09.09.2010, whereby on query raised as to whether benefit of MACP should be given from the date of entry grade or from the date of regular service/approved service counted under various service, it was clarified that benefit under MACP would be available from the date of actual joining on the post in the entry grade.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon paragraph 9 of the MACP Scheme has argued that benefit of MACP will be only available in respect of service rendered on regular basis. The further reliance has been placed on clause 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.5.2009 which provides that the MACP Scheme is only applicable to regular employees and as such the ad-hoc services can not be counted for the benefits under the the MACP scheme.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶31

The clause 3 of O.M dated 19.5.2009 by which the MACP scheme has been introduced provides that the MACP Scheme do not apply to casual employees including those granted "temporary status" and to ad-hoc or

¶32

WRIA No. 9622 of 2024

¶33

4

¶34

contractual employees, meaning thereby that the benefit under MACP scheme do not apply to casual /ad-hoc /contractual employees. The clause 3 of O.M dated 19.5.2009 is reproduced herein below:

¶35

"3. The Scheme would be known as "MODIFIED ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION. SCHEME (MACPS) FOR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. This Scheme is in supersession of previous ACP Scheme and clarifications issued there under and shall be applicable to all regularly appointed Group "A", "B", and "C" Central Government Civilian Employees except officers of the Organised Group "A" Service. The status of Group "0" employees would cease on their completion of prescribed training, as recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission and would be treated as Group "C" employees. Casual employees, including those granted 'temporary status' and employees appointed in the Government only on adhoc or contract basis shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid Scheme. The details of the MACP Scheme and conditions for grant of the financial upgradation under the Scheme are given in Annexure-l."

¶36

A bare perusal of clause 3 of the O.M dated 19.5.2009 indicates that it excludes those employees having status of casual /ad-hoc/contractual from the preview of MACP scheme. In other words, the MACP scheme do not apply to casual/ad-hoc/ contractual employees and it only applies to regularly appointment employees. It is not in dispute that respondent no 1 being regularly appointed is entitled to benefits under the MACP scheme. The only question which falls for consideration is that whether services rendered on ad-hoc basis prior to regularization/ regular appointment can be counted for the purpose of grant of benefit under the MACP scheme. The answer to the aforesaid question lies in paragraph 9 of the MACP scheme. The clarification as contained in O.M. dated 9.9.2010 in clear terms provide that the benefits under the MACP scheme would be available from the actual date of joining on the post in the entry grade. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 actually joined the post on being appointed on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 06.04.1993 followed by his regularization on the said post with effect from 15.12.1997. The actual joining on the post in the entry grade i.e. joining on the post of General Duty Assistant is when respondent no.1 joined the post in

¶37

WRIA No. 9622 of 2024

¶38

5

¶39

pursuant to his ad-hoc appointment vide order dated 06.04.1993.

¶40

Thus,we are of the view that services rendered on ad-hoc basis qualifies for grant of benefit under MACP Scheme. In view of what has been stated in the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 and also in view of the fact that only exclusion for not counting services rendered on adhoc basis is that if such ad hoc services are of per-appointment training. It is not the case of the petitioners that the ad hoc appointment of respondent no. 1 was a pre appointment training period.

¶41

We also take notice of the fact that the Medical Doctors / Non - Medical Scientists of Central Council for Research In Unani Medicine were given the benefit of In- situ Promotion Rules, 1990 counting their ad-hoc services for for grant of promotional pay scale on completion of 5 years, 10 years and 15 years of service and such a different yardstick cannot be applied in the case of respondent no. 1 and likely situated other employees of the Council, more so, in view of the clarification contained in O. M. Dated 9.9.2010.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition fail and is accordingly dismissed .

¶43

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶44

April 16, 2026 A. Verma

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Ministry of Health and Family Welfare v. Amar Nath Maurya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Ministry of Health and Family Welfare v. Amar Nath Maurya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Piyush Kumar Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 7 Others

M/S Pramod Kumar Gupta (Thekedar) Thru.Partner Abhishek Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Aryan Group of Guard Services Thru. Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Nagar Vikas Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 3 Others vs No. Jc 374653P Ex Sub Manmadhan Nair

Shane Awadh Gaushala Samiti Thru. Secy. Jagdiswara Dandi Swami and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others