'Past Service In Different Cadre Cannot Be Counted For Career Progression Benefits, Mere 'Continuity' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a lecturer of the National Institute of Unani Medicine (NIUM) who sought counting of his past service as Clinical Registrar for extending benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292]

The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench, which had earlier rejected the petitioner's claim.

“Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the petitioner entered the post of Lecturer by way of lateral entry without break in service.…Continuity of service is distinct from entitlement to count past service rendered in another cadre for promotional or financial benefits. Unless the governing Rules or the Scheme specifically provide for such reckoning, no such right can be claimed merely because there was no break in service…”, the Court clarified.

The court also noted that the principle of equal pay for equal work not attracted merely because an employee alleges that another employee is drawing higher pay. The petitioner must establish that the persons sought to be compared are similarly situated in all material particulars, the court underscored.

“…. The petitioner must establish that the persons sought to be compared are similarly situated in all material particulars, including the cadre, service conditions, nature of duties and responsibilities. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner seeks comparison between different cadres and has also noticed the distinction in the nature of duties. In the absence of any demonstrated perversity in such finding, this Court finds no justification to invoke the doctrine of equal pay for equal work…”, the court clarified further.

The petitioner, Dr Mohamed Shakeeel Ansari, currently serving as Associate Professor at NIUM, Bengaluru, approached the High Court challenging the CAT order dated February 1, 2023. The petitioner had initially joined NIUM as a Clinical Registrar on October 22, 2004, and continued in that position until March 2012.

In 2012, Dr. Ansari applied through proper channel for the post of Lecturer (Jarahiyat), pursuant to a recruitment notification. After participating in the said selection process, he was selected and appointed as Lecturer on March 24, 2012, with his duty commencing shortly thereafter

Dr. Ansari contended that his appointment as Lecturer was by way of lateral entry, without any break in service. Therefore, the petitioner contended that his earlier service as Clinical Registrar ought to have been taken into consideration while extending benefits under the DACP Scheme.

Ansari argued that the posts of Clinical Registrar and Lecturer are analogous in nature, both falling within the teaching stream.

According to him, several officers junior to him were granted higher Grade Pay under the Scheme, resulting in discrimination and violation of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

Hence. he challenged the Office Memorandum dated June 6, 2017, which enhanced the period of regular service required for promotion under DACP and gave effect to the Scheme from April 1, 2015.

The CAT had dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner after observing that the post of Clinical Registrar and the post of Lecturer belong to different cadres since they encompass different duties and responsibilities.

The Tribunal, while dismissing the applications, held that under applicable Office Memoranda, the benefit of DACP Scheme is available only on completion of the prescribed period of regular service in the relevant cadre.

The High Court also concurred and recorded the said findings of the Tribunal:

“...The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the post of Clinical Registrar and the post of Lecturer belong to different cadres and involve different duties and responsibilities. Consequently, it has held that the service rendered in the former post cannot automatically be reckoned for grant of financial upgradation in the latter cadre”, the Court observed.

The Tribunal had also noted that the petitioner was rightly extended the benefit of DACP Scheme from the date he became eligible in the cadre of Lecturer. According to the Tribunal, the Professor's past service as Clinical Registrar could not be counted for financial upgradation under the applicable Scheme.

Agreeing with the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, the Division Bench noted as below:

“…Financial upgradation under the DACP Scheme is governed by the applicable executive instructions and eligibility criteria prescribed thereunder. If the difference in pay is the consequence of operation of the governing Scheme and not the result of hostile discrimination between identically situated employees, the plea founded on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has found no material to establish that the petitioner and the employees relied upon by him constitute one homogeneous class for the purpose of grant of DACP benefits..”,the court said.

 In the order, the High Court has also noted that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, it does not function as a Court of appeal over the Tribunal's decision.

“…No jurisdictional error, patent illegality or violation of the principles of natural justice is demonstrated so as to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution….”, the court noted.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the order dated February 1, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in the Original Application was affirmed.

Case Title: Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr.

Case No: Writ Petition No.6821 of 2023 (S-CAT)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

For the Petitioner (Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari): Sri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondents (Union of India & Director, NIUM): Sri. Vinay Venugopal, Senior Central Government Counsel (CGC)

Click Here To Read/Download Order