MACP CAT Tribunal Bench Case Legal Advice

Last Updated on September 7, 2024 by Satish Mishra

This post is a case digest on the issue of MACP CAT Tribunal Bench Case Legal Advice whether the benefits under MACP Scheme would only be available to the applicants in the next higher Grade Pay in heirarachy of pay scales/grade pay of 6th CPC Pay Scale/Grade Pay and or in the heirararchy of Pay Scale/Grade Pay attached to the next promotional post.

The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme for government employees in India entitles them to the next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the revised pay bands, but not the next promotional post. The Supreme Court ruled this in January 2022, based on a civil appeal that challenged a Kerala High Court order.

The MACP Scheme has been in effect since September 1, 2008, and is applicable to all employees up to HAG level, except members of Organized Group `A’ Services. The scheme is administered at 10, 20, and 30 years.

The answer is the applicants in the next higher Grade Pay in heirarachy of pay scales/grade pay of 6th CPC Pay Scale/Grade Pay. The controversy is now settled with this judgment.

The same issue was gone into in OA No. 290/00475/2013 dated 26.08.2019 (Lalit Dubey & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors) which this bench would not like to go again.

Let’s have the judgment here.

Also Read- Reservation in Promotion Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

All India Central Ground Water vs M/O Water Resources on 27 February, 2020

Applicants

1.All India Central Ground Water Board Employees Association (Recognized by Government of India), through President, Ram Niwas Choudhary S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Ji Choudhary, aged 47 years, resident of H.No. 30, Shri Ram Nagar, Near Ramdev Temple, Nandari, Jodhpur (at present working on the post of Assistant Driller-cum-Mechanic and posted at Division – XI, Central Ground Water Board, Jodhpur).

2.Parvesh Kumar Rana S/o Shri Kashmir Singh Rana, aged 47years, resident of H.No. 30, Shri Ram Nagar, Near Ramdev Temple, Nandari, Jodhpur (at present working on the post of Assistant Driller-cum-Mechanic and post at Division-XI, Central Ground Water Board, Jodhpur)

Also Read- Sexual Harassment Case in Cat Tribunal

Respondents

1.The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

2.The Chairman, Central Ground Water Board, Bhujal Bhawan, NH-IV, Faridabad.

3.The Director (Finance), Ministry of Water Resources, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

4.The Director (Administration), Ministry of Water Resources, Central Ground Water Board, Bhujal Bhawan, NH-IV, Faridabad.

Also Read- Pensioners Benefits by Cat Tribunal

The provisions of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and the conflicting viewpoints of various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunals and High Courts constituted the essence of the present appeal.

The applicants, in the present case, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking:

That the applicant be permitted to pursue joint application under rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985
That Original Application filed by the Applicants may kindly be allowed and the respondent departments be directed to grant the benefit of upgradation of pay on completion of 10,20 and 30 years of service to the members of the association in next promotion post in their hierarchy as per MACP Scheme and the entire benefit should be granted from the date employees are entitled with 18% interest.
That any other order be passed in favour of the applicants that may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice

Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

The applicants were appointed on the post of Technical Operator (Drilling) by order dated 27.07.1988 and 15.07.1988 respectively, thereupon the applicants were promoted to the post of Assistant Driller-cum-Mechanic by orders dated 16.01.2012 and 18.09.2011. The Respondent department granted the Applicants MACPS on the completion of 20 years of service. The applicants claim that the respondent department has wrongly interpreted the terms and conditions of the MACPS and that they should be placed in next grade pay of promotional post as per promotional hierarchy. As per the promotion hierarchy next promotion post from Assistant Driller–cum-Mechanic is Driller–cum-Mechanic and under 6th Pay Commission revised pay scale of Driller-cum-Mechanic runs in the grade of Rs.4200. It was further stated that the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme(MACPS) was announced in supersession of the earlier ACP scheme of 1999. Hence, the applicants have preferred this O.A.

Also Read- Jbt Teacher’s Termination Order Stayed by Cat Tribunal

The respondents filed a written statement where it was stated that allowing the relief sought by applicants would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and would be totally against the Government policy. The respondents further stated that on

the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India took a conscious decision to accept the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) with further modification to grant three financial upgradations under the Scheme at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service in the immediate next higher grade pay

in the hierarchy of recommended revised pay bands as given in Central Civil Services(CCS)(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

It was further stated that MACPS superseded the ACP Scheme and came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2008.

Also Read- Service Matters of Pgi in Cat Chandigarh

The primary difference between the two schemes was that the ACP Scheme envisaged two financial upgradations in the higher pay scale in the promotional hierarchy after regular service of 12 years and 24 years if no regular promotions were availed by an employee during this period. Whereas the MACPS envisages three financial upgradations in the next immediate grade pay hierarchy in recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as per CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service.

The MACP Schemes issued by the department is applicable to all

Central Government civilian employees. The respondents, thus, contended that allowing the relief sought by the applicants would be in contravention with the provision of the MACPS and prayed that the O.A filed by the applicants be dismissed.

Also Read- Income-tax Officers Promotion Debunked by Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

The learned counsel for the applicants relied on D.M. Nagesh Vs. Assistant Superintendent Post Offices, Bangalore, to endorse his argument that where there are conflicting judgements of various Benches of CAT and even at times judgements of High Court, it would be difficult to rely on them as precedents. Fortifying his arguments that counsel for the applicant relied on S.I. Roop Lal & Anr. v. Lt. Governor^[1], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction over a subsequent overruling of a judgement by a Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. The Court stated that Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under a just system. Expressing the absolute necessity of precedent the Court said that precedents are necessary for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system.

Also Read- Ias Pcs Hcs Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Manubhai Bhagwanji Rathod v. Union of India & Ors. (Original Application No. 18 of 2015) where it was held that a bare reading of the MACPS would make it clear that it is the next higher Grade Pay which has to be given and not the Grade Pay in the next hierarchical post, as was available under the ACP Scheme with reference to the pay scale of the next above hierarchical post. Thus, the claim of the petitioners that they should be placed in the replacement Pay Band to the next promotional post in the hierarchy as was available under the ACP Scheme is misplaced. To arrive at the abovementioned findings

Also read- Service Matters in Labour Court Cat Tribunal and High Court

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal relied on R.S. Sengor & Others v. Union of India and Others, decided on 04.04.2011, in which the question before the Hon’ble Tribunal was whether the hierarchy contemplated by the MACPS was in the immediate higher Grade Pay or the Grade Pay of the next Pay Band and it was held that merely because others have been granted financial up-gradation in the pay scale of the promotional post in the hierarchy under the ACP Scheme, would not entitle the petitioner to be placed in such scales, as the language of the scheme makes it clear that the financial up-gradation under the ACP/MACPS are different than regular promotions in the grade.

Also Read- Interdepartmental Policy of Ut in Cat Chandigarh

The petitioners in support of their claim submitted that an identical assertion was allowed by the Chandigarh Bench of this tribunal in the case of Raj Pal vs. Union of India and Others Order dated 31.05.2011 in O.A. No. 1038/CH/2010 and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner contended that the matter has attained finality as SLP[(CC)7467/2013] preferred against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the contrary, the respondents submitted that the order of dismissal of SLP[(CC)7467/2013] is not on grounds of merits by on the ground of delay and laches. The respondents furthermore pointed out that an identical view taken by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 816/2012, the same was substantiated by the High Court of Kerala, was challenged before the Apex Court and the matter is still in consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was reckoned that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Pal’s case was binding on only the parties to the suit and thus, the same cannot be treated as a precedent.

Also Read- Promotion from Pcs/hcs to Ias Through Cat, Tribunal Chandigarh

Another pertinent concern before the Hon’ble Tribunal was in the case of conflicting views which view is to be preferred and which view is to be disregarded, to unravel the predicament, the Hon’ble court relied upon Dr A.K. Dawar v. Union of India and Others, O.A. No. 555/2001, where the following was held

that if there is a judgment of the High Court on the point having territorial jurisdiction over this Tribunal, it would be binding :
that if there is no decision of the High Court having territorial jurisdiction on the point involved but there is a decision of the High Court anywhere in India, this Tribunal would be bound by the decision of that High Court;
that if there are conflicting decisions of the High Courts including the High Court having the territorial jurisdiction, the decision of the Larger Bench would be binding, and
that if there are conflicting decisions of the High Courts including the one having territorial jurisdiction then following the ratio of the judgment in the case of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (supra), this Tribunal would be free to take its own view to accept the ruling of either of the High Courts rather than expressing third point of view.

Also Read- CAT Appeal in High Court Chandigarh Challenging Seniority

Thereby, after carefully examining the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 by which the Government introduced the MACPS the Hon’ble Tribunal concluded that it is the next higher Grade pay which has to be given and not the Grade Pay in the hierarchical post under the MACPS and consequently, the appeal of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal (cat) Chandigarh

Thus, the matter in dispute in the present appeal has already been adjudicated by the same Bench in Lalit Dubey & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors OA No. 290/00475/2013 dated 26.08.2019 and hence does not need to be gone into again. The Jodhpur Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal held that that the petitioner would only be entitled to only to avail the benefits of the next higher Pay Grade in the hierarchy of Grade Pay under the 6^thCPC and not in the hierarchy of Grade Pay affixed to the next promotional post. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioners lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.