JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 12976/2013 has been filed by the petitioner D.P. Gupta challenging order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby Original Application No. 120/2010 filed by him was dismissed. The petitioner in the Original Application had prayed for direction to the respondents to grant him benefit of financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short 'MACPS') by treating him as the employee working in the grade pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 30.10.1998 continuously and also to grant him grade pay of Rs. 4800/- and make fixation accordingly. Prayer has also been made for grant of arrears with interest. 3. Writ Petition No. 12982/2013 has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal whereby Original Application No. 698/2012 filed by him was dismissed. The petitioner in the Original Application had prayed for direction to the respondents to treat regular service from 30.10.1998 to 07.01.2003 rendered by the petitioner on the post of Law Assistant in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 on adhoc basis followed by regular service with all benefits and to extend benefits treating regular service from 30.10.1998 on the post of Law Assistant with all consequential benefits. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Petition No. 12976/2013 are being taken as the basis for deciding the matters. The petitioner was initially appointed on 30.05.1989 as Senior Clerk on being selected by Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. He was, thereafter, promoted as Head Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. He was working in the Western Railway in Kota Division. Western Railway, at that time, notified 10 posts of Law Assistant in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 vide letter dated 19.11.1996. The petitioner applied and eligibility list was issued vide letter dated 12.12.1996 wherein his name was mentioned at Serial No. 4. He appeared in the written examination, result of which was declared on 14.03.1997 in which his name was mentioned at Serial No. 7 for interview. 1600-2660 vide letter dated 19.11.1996. The petitioner applied and eligibility list was issued vide letter dated 12.12.1996 wherein his name was mentioned at Serial No. 4. He appeared in the written examination, result of which was declared on 14.03.1997 in which his name was mentioned at Serial No. 7 for interview. The respondents after taking interview placed 10 officials on the provisional panel for the post of Law Assistant vide memo dated 04.06.1997 wherein name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No. 5. The said provisional panel was challenged by the candidates not placed on panel before Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Mumbai, which decided the matter by directing to recast the panel. However, the respondents vide memo dated 04.08.1998 accorded adhoc promotion to the petitioner on the post of Law Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 in which name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No. 4 and he was posted at Bhave Nagar. Thereafter, the petitioner vide memo dated 16.10.1998 was posted at Mumbai where he joined on 30.10.1998. It was, thereafter, that vide subsequent order dated 26.10.1999, the respondents in compliance of order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, revised panel of 10 candidates for posting them vide memo dated 26.10.1999 but adhoc promotion of the petitioner was maintained. Thereafter, the respondents after considering vacant post, proposed selection for filling up of 6 posts of Law Assistant against ranker quota on which the petitioner was allowed to work in adhoc capacity. The petitioner in the same adhoc capacity on the post of Law Assistant was transferred from Mumbai to Jaipur vide memo dated 24.08.2000. The respondents thereafter issued notification dated 31.10.2000 for filling up vacant posts. In this regard, the respondents vide letter dated 09.04.2001 revised vacancies from 6 to 15. The petitioner appeared in written examination and interview. In the panel of 14 candidates, name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No. 3. It was thereafter that the petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2003 was given regular promotion on the post of Law Assistant. 5. Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that adhoc promotion of the petitioner on the post of Law Assistant vide order dated 04.08.1998 was followed by regular promotion vide order dated 08.01.2003. It was thereafter that the petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2003 was given regular promotion on the post of Law Assistant. 5. Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that adhoc promotion of the petitioner on the post of Law Assistant vide order dated 04.08.1998 was followed by regular promotion vide order dated 08.01.2003. During this period, the petitioner continued to draw pay and allowances of the post of Law Assistant with due benefits on the recommendations of V and VI Pay Commissions. Reference is made to order issued by the Railway Board, especially to para 214(c)(i) to argue that therein it is provided that for promotion to non-selection posts, (i) staff in the immediate lower grade with a minimum service of two years in that grade will only be eligible for promotion, unless a longer length of service in the lower grade has been stipulated as a condition of eligibility for promotion in any particular category. It is argued that service for this purpose would include the service, if any, rendered on adhoc basis followed by regular service without break. The conditions of two years service should stand fulfilled at the time of actual promotion and not necessarily at the stage of consideration. It is argued that service of the petitioner rendered on adhoc basis was counted for the purpose of increments and pay fixation as also for the purpose of promotion on the post of Chief Law Assistant, which is evident from the fact that while the petitioner was regularly appointed vide order dated 08.01.2003, he was promoted on the post of Chief Law Assistant only 10 months thereafter on 04.11.2003. 6. Learned counsel argued that the Tribunal by the impugned order has erred in law in not granting benefit of MACPS on completion of ten years service counting from the date of entry to the post of Law Assistant on 04.08.1998 because provisions of MACPS merely require ten years continuous service in the same grade pay. The petitioner from the date of his initial promotion was working in the same grade pay and continued to draw his salary in the same grade pay after his regular promotion on 08.01.2003. The Tribunal was therefore wholly unjustified in holding that benefit of MACPS can be granted only to those candidates who completed ten years regular service in the same grade pay. The Tribunal was therefore wholly unjustified in holding that benefit of MACPS can be granted only to those candidates who completed ten years regular service in the same grade pay. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 since his promotion and posting on the post of Law Assistant, albeit on adhoc basis, till his regular appointment on such post on 08.01.2003. As per instructions issued by the Railway Board, if a person has worked for ten years continuously in the same grade pay, he is entitled to MACPS. Learned counsel in this connection referred to clause 4 of order dated 29.09.2010 whereby it has been clarified that the benefit under MACPS would be available from the date of actual joining on the post in the entry grade. As per letter dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure-16), the petitioner is entitled to MACPS by counting ten years from the date of his entry in the grade. Learned counsel referred to office memorandum dated 09.09.2010, whereby in clause no. 4, a clarification was sought whether the benefits of MACPS would be granted from the date of entry grade or from the date of their regular service/approved service counted under various service rules, reply to which was that the benefit under MACPS would be available from the date of actual joining of the post in the entry grade. 7. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Dr. K. Ganapathy vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal & Others (W.P.No. 1871 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2016); judgment of Calcutta High Court in Sunity Chakraborty vs. Union of India & Others, (WPCT No. 497 of 2013 along with one other connected petition decided on 11.03.2014); judgment of Kerala High Court in Superintendent of Post Offices & Others vs. G. Anil Kumar & Others (OP (CAT) No. 33 of 2016 decided on 09.02.2016); judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Ram vs. Union of India Etc. (CWP No. 21669 of 2016 (O&M) decided on 30.04.2018; judgment of Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in Union of India & Others vs. Har Govind Sharma (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11709/2013 along with 22 other writ petitions decided on 10.08.2015) and D.B. Writ Review Petition No. 171/2016, Union of India & Others vs. S.N. Singh Bhati and 24 other review petitions decided on 03.01.2018. 8. Per contra, Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner was appointed in Railways in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 on 30.05.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 on 01.01.1996. The petitioner was then promoted to the post of Law Assistant on 04.08.1998 only on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. It was thereafter that the petitioner has been granted benefit of grade pay of Rs. 4800/- on 09.01.2013 counting period of ten years from 08.01.2003 when he was regularly appointed on the post of Law Assistant. As per para 4 of Railway Board's letter dated 29.09.2010, benefit of MACPS was to be granted from the date of actual joining of the post in the entry grade which essentially has to be on regular basis. Learned counsel referred to MACPS (Annexure-5 of the original application). He also referred to Clause 26 of the said scheme which provides that cases of persons holding higher posts purely on adhoc basis shall also be considered by the Screening Committee along with others. Learned counsel referred to the office memorandum dated 10.06.2009 issued by Railway Board, in para 3 of which it has been clarified that MACPS shall be applicable to all regularly appointed Group 'A', 'B' and 'C' Railway Employees except officers of the Organised Group 'A' Service. It categorically provides that casual employees, including those granted 'temporary status' and employees appointed in the Railways only on adhoc or contract basis shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid scheme. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 10. It categorically provides that casual employees, including those granted 'temporary status' and employees appointed in the Railways only on adhoc or contract basis shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid scheme. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 10. The Tribunal in the impugned order has taken the view that benefit of the MACPS can be given only to those persons who have completed ten years continuous regular service in the same grade pay and since the petitioner was regularised in service w.e.f. 08.01.2003, he has not completed ten years requisite for the purpose of benefit of MACPS. MACPS envisaged that there shall be three financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. Financial upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay. Clause 1 of the MACPS envisages 10 years continuous service in the same grade pay and it does not qualify this requirement by saying that such service should be only on regular basis. Clause 9 of the MACPS provides that 'Regular service' for the purpose of the MACPS shall commence from 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. Here in the instant case adhoc promotion of the petitioner as Law Assistant was not on preappointment basis. Clause 26 of the MACPS provides that cases of persons holding higher posts purely on adhoc basis shall also be considered by the Screening Committee along with others so that they may be allowed benefit of financial upgradation on reversion to the lower post if it is beneficial vis-a-vis the pay drawn on adhoc basis. 11. Railway Board's Instruction No. 101/209 dated 10.06.2009, in para 3, has clarified this position that this MACPS was being issued as a new scheme known as Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) for Railway Employees in supersession of previous ACP Scheme and clarifications issued there under and shall be applicable to all regularly appointed Group 'A', 'B' and 'C' Railway Employees except officers of the Organised Group 'A' Service. In this clause, it has been clarified that casual employees, including those granted 'temporary status' and employees appointed in the Railways only on adhoc or contract basis shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid Scheme. That prescription has been in altogether different context as the petitioner cannot be said to be a casual employee nor an employee working in temporary status or appointed in the railways on adhoc or contract basis. Though the petitioner was promoted on adhoc basis, but he was granted promotion after he was duly selected for such appointment. He applied for the post, his name appeared in the eligibility list, then he appeared in the written examination and thereafter faced interview and was then empanelled. It is after this much of the exercise, that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Law Assistant on 04.08.1998, albeit on adhoc basis, in the pay scale of 6500- 10500. And it was this pay scale in which he continued to draw even when regular promotion was granted to him on 08.01.2003. The services rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis after 1998 have been counted for the purpose of increments, pay fixation and also for promotion on the post of Chief Law Assistant within ten months of his regular promotion on the post of Law Assistant. The petitioner thus qualified the requirement of Clause 1 of the MACPS of having continuously spent ten years in the same grade pay. 12. A clarification was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training vide office memorandum dated 09.09.2010 on the question that whether the benefits of MACPS would be granted from the date of entry grade or from the date of their regular service/approved service counted under various service rules. The aforesaid question was answered by observing that the benefits under MACPS would be available from the date of actual joining on the post in the entry grade. Thus, the clarification merely required actual joining on the post in entry grade but does not insist on regular appointment. It is therefore clear that there is no inhibition in counting the services rendered by the petitioner for continuous ten years even since his entry in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. 13. Thus, the clarification merely required actual joining on the post in entry grade but does not insist on regular appointment. It is therefore clear that there is no inhibition in counting the services rendered by the petitioner for continuous ten years even since his entry in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. 13. The Calcutta High Court in Sunity Chakraborty (supra) dealt with the same issue where the petitioners, trained Nurses, were appointed on adhoc basis against substantive posts which were sanctioned. They fulfilled all eligibility criteria and completed all the formalities including an interview. The Entire period of service including services rendered on adhoc basis was reckoned for the purpose of computing qualifying service for payment of pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioners therein claimed that after completion of 30 years services, they became entitled to MACPS, which was denied, as the respondents therein did not include the period of service which they spent on adhoc basis for making said scheme applicable to them. The Tribunal dismissed Original Applications filed by the petitioners therein. The Calcutta High Court taking into consideration Rule 9 of the MACPS applicable to Central Government Employees and the Scheme applicable to the Railways Employees found that Clause 9 was identically worded in both the schemes. Moreover, the clarificatory note issued by the Department of Personnel and Training leaves no manner of doubt that service rendered prior to regularisation must also be reckoned for extending the beenfits of MACP Scheme. 14. The Kerala High Court in Superintendent of Post Offices & Others vs. G. Anil Kumar & Others (supra) taking note of the fact the respondents therein were appointed in the regular service of the Postal Department, without any break in service, observed that the continuous service of the respondents had to be reckoned from the dates on which they were appointed as Warrant Officers in the Army Postal Service. Holding thus, the Kerala High Court upheld the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench to this effect. Similar view was taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Ram (supra). 15. Holding thus, the Kerala High Court upheld the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench to this effect. Similar view was taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Ram (supra). 15. A Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in a bunch of writ petitions, leading one being Union of India & Others vs. Har Govind Sharma (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11709/2013 decided on 10.08.2015), also took the view that as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme modified on 01.09.2008, financial upgradation was made admissible whenever a person completes ten years continuous service in the same grade pay. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Union of India and upheld the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal to the said effect. Union of India filed review petitions leading one being Union of India & Others vs. S.N. Singh Bhati (D.B. Writ Review Petition No. 171/2016), which were also dismissed by Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 03.01.2018. While dismissing the review petitions, Division Bench of this Court took note of the fact that similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in Union of India & Others vs. D. Sivakumar & Another against which SLP was filed by Union of India, which too was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.08.2016. Even Karnataka High Court in the case of The Union of India & Others vs. Shri Basanna Nayak (Writ Petition No. 200807/2016) has taken the similar view. Madras High Court in Dr. K. Ganapathy (Supra) also took the similar view and directed the respondent-Union of India to consider claim of the petitioner therein with reference to clarification dated 09.09.2010 that date of actual joining of the post in the entry grade would mean any service be it regular or adhoc. 16. In the light of conclusion we have arrived at in Writ Petition No. 12976/2013, necessity of going into the merits of Writ Petition No. 12982/2013 stands obviated, as the relief prayed by the petitioner in that writ petition would stand granted, as Writ Petition No. 12976/2013 is being allowed. 17. In view of above, both the writ petitions deserve to succeed and the same are hereby allowed. 17. In view of above, both the writ petitions deserve to succeed and the same are hereby allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to benefit of MACPS on completion of 10 years service counting from the date of entry to the grade pay on the post of Law Assistant on 04.08.1998 with all the consequential benefits together with interest @ 6% per annum. The respondents are directed to comply this judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 18. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected writ petition.