Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010149612026 2026:GAU- AS:10440-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3901/2026 ANIMA TALUKDAR CARE OF HEMANTA TALUKDAR, VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOCHMUKTAPUR BUS STAND, MUKTAPUR, BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT.- KAMRUP , ASSAM , PIN-781381 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL WATER COMMISSIONGOVERNMENT OF INDIASEWA BHAWAN R K PURAMNEW DELHI 110066 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER BRAHMAPUTRA AND BARAK BASIN ORGANISATION CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES CWC COMPLEX BEHIND ADABARI BUS STAND POST OFFICE-GUWAHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781014 4:THE SUPERENTENDING ENGINEER HYDROLOGICAL CIRCLE Page No.# 2/5 CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES CWC COMPLEX BEHIND ADABARI BUS STAND POST OFFICE-GUWAHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 78101 For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Sharma, Advocat For the Respondent(s) :Ms. A. Gayan, CGC –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.07.2026 (AshutoshKumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned Advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent/Union of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 248/2018, whereby her claim for financial up- gradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme has been rejected by holding that according to the MACP Regulation,financial up-gradation could be granted only on completion on 10 years of regular service. The facts are self-explanatory. The petitioner was appointed as a work-charged “Khalasi” in the year 1984. Her appointment was extended from time to time without any break in the service. She had, at one point of time, approached the Page No.# 3/5 Tribunal seeking a direction for regularization of her services, when the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider her case for regularization. Against an attempted termination of her service, she had again approached the Tribunal, wherein a direction was issued not to terminate her service and also to consider her case for regularization. It appears that along the lines ofthe order of the Tribunal, referred to above, the petitioner was granted temporary statusretrospectively with effect from 15.05.1993. By the year 2005, the petitioner had rendered about 21 years of continuous service as a casual worker and a temporary status mazdoor. She thereafter kept on making requests for regularization of her services on the strength of an order passed by the Tribunal in the year 1994, which ultimately did not yield any result. In the year 2006, she and another employee, namely, Md. Aibuddin Ahmed, preferred an Original Application (O.A. No. 235/2006) seeking regularization of their services in terms of an Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, providing for grant of temporary status followed by regularization of casual workers. The afore-noted O.A. was disposed off vide an order dated 25.05.2009 directing the respondents to take steps for regularization of their services. By an Office Memorandum dated 23.12.2009, the petitioner was regularized and she joined the regular service with effect from 01.01.2010. The petitioner superannuated on 30.09.2020. Page No.# 4/5 Considering the period of regular service rendered by the petitioner, she was granted financial up-gradation under the ACP scheme only with effect from 29.05.2020. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that her past services should have been taken into account and had that been done, she would have been entitled to her first financial up-gradation under the ACP in 2007 and the second financial up-gradation under the MACP in 2018-2019. The petitioner had further buttressed her demand with an additional information that her co-worker, namely, Aibuddin Ahmed was granted financial up-gradation even by taking into account his past services rendered as a temporary employee. But the same was inexplicablydenied to her. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order categorically held that by counting the services of the petitioner as a regular employee, she was entitled to her first financial up-gradation only in the month of May, 2020. The claim of the petitioner could not have been allowed only on the ground of a wrong concession having been made in favour of another employee. In our estimation, the afore-noted reasoning of the Tribunal is justified and not worth any interference. Sincethere is no dispute with respect to the date of regularization of the petitioner in service, she was only entitled to the first financial up-gradation under the ACP scheme in the month of May, 2020, which was granted. The petitioner thereafter superannuated sometimes in September, 2020. Thus, the claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal was rightly Page No.# 5/5 rejected. We find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant