The Karnataka High Court has declined to grant past service benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme to a lecturer who sought to count his earlier service as a Clinical Registrar for financial upgradation. A Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. Manmadha Rao dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision.
Background of the Case
Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari was initially appointed as a Clinical Registrar at the National Institute of Unani Medicine on October 22, 2004. He continued in that position until March 2012.
He was subsequently selected through a recruitment process and appointed as Lecturer (Jarahiyat) on March 24, 2012, joining the post two days later. He argued that his appointment as Lecturer was through lateral entry and without any break in service. Therefore, according to him, his earlier service as Clinical Registrar should also be considered for benefits under the DACP Scheme.
The authorities disagreed, maintaining that Clinical Registrar and Lecturer were separate cadres with different duties and responsibilities. They contended that DACP benefits depended upon completion of the prescribed period of regular service in the relevant cadre.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, rejected his claim in February 2023. It held that service rendered as Clinical Registrar could not be counted for financial upgradation after his appointment as Lecturer.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court emphasised that its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and not equivalent to an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision.
“The Court does not function as a Court of appeal over the decision of the Tribunal,” the Bench observed, explaining that interference is justified only where there is patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice.
The Bench found that the Tribunal had correctly treated the posts of Clinical Registrar and Lecturer as belonging to different cadres. It noted that earlier service cannot automatically be counted for financial benefits in another cadre unless the governing rules or scheme specifically permit such reckoning.
The Court also rejected the argument that uninterrupted service or lateral entry by itself entitled the petitioner to carry forward his previous service. It observed that continuity of service and entitlement to count past service for promotional or financial benefits are distinct matters.
On the plea of “equal pay for equal work”, the Bench said that a higher salary drawn by another employee alone does not establish entitlement. The employees being compared must be similarly placed in matters including cadre, service conditions, duties and responsibilities.
Decision
The Karnataka High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s findings were supported by the material on record and that no jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity had been established.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal’s February 1, 2023 order.
It also disposed of any pending interlocutory applications and made no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: W.P. No. 6821 of 2023 (S-CAT)
Judge: Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Decision Date: July 22, 2026
