GRANT OF MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY-CAT GUWAHATI

GRANT OF MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY: CAT PRINCIPLE BENCH, NEW DELHI DIRECTS UNION OF INDIA TO GRANT MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY TO PPOs OF DIRECTORATE OF PLANT PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION, FARIDABAD. THE CASE WAS FILED BY SHRI K S SHARMA, PPO (E)& Ors VIDE OA NO. 2548/2014, MA No. 2167/2014. A copy of the judgement, send by Shri A.K. Chugh of Barmer(Raj) is given below:

OA 2548/2014

ORDER (ORAL)

Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J):-

The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the scale of Rs. 15600-39100 (PB-3) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 & 6600 as illegal and arbitrary

(b) To direct the respondents to grant scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 & 600 attached to the promotional posts, as 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation to the applicants under MACP from due date with all arrears of pay.

(c) To declare the OM/MACP dated 19.05.2009 as unconstitutional to the extent the same deny the next promotional scale attached to the promotional post as 1st, 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and issue appropriate consequential directions.

(d) To allow the O.A with costs.

(e) Pass such other direction or directions order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. According to the learned counsel for applicants, this case is squarely covered by an order of this Tribunal dated 26.11.2012 in OA No.904/2012 – Sanjay Kumar Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-

“4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issue raised in the OA has already been considered by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1038/CH/2010- Rajpal son of Shri Tilak Ram Versus Union of India and others.

5. In the aforesaid OA, the applicant was working as Photocopier and he was already given 1st Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme. According to the applicant, his pay had been wrongly fixed in pay band-I with grade pay of Rs.2400/- on grant of 2nd Financial Upgradation under the MACP Scheme. This Tribunal held that the applicant therein was entitled for the 2nd Financial Upgradation in the next hierarchy of posts and not in the next grade pay. The posts of Photocopier and that of LDC/Hindi Typist being isolated posts, not having any promotional avenues, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations:-

“11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents on record.

12. There is no dispute that the applicant is holding the post of Photocopier, which is an isolated post, having no avenues for promotion. It is also not disputed that he post held by the applicant had been declared equivalent to the post of LDC/Hindi Typist etc. by the Tribunal as well as the High Court by Judicial pronouncements in matters of grant of ACP, which have attained finality and stands implemented also. Accordingly, applicant was
granted Ist ACP (under the old ACP) w.e.f. 9.8.99 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000.

13. It has also been settled that the ACP would be granted on completion of the required years of service in the hierarchy of posts for the posts of LDC/Hindi Typists, and not in the next higher scale in the recommended scales. The same principle would have to be applicable in regard to grant of MACP to the applicant. The only difference is that while in case of ACP two financial upgradations were granted on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, in case of MACP, three upgradations on intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of service.

14. The respondents have placed reliance on para 13 of the MACPS, which reads as under:

“13. Existing time-bound promotion scheme, including insitu promotion scheme, Staff Car Driver Scheme or any other kind of promotion scheme existing for a particular category of employees in a Ministry/Department or its offices, may continue to be operational for the concerned category of employees if it is decided by the concerned administrative authorities to retain such Schemes, after necessary consultations or they may switch-over to the MACPS. However, these Schemes shall not run concurrently with the MACPS.

Reliance has further been placed on decision taken in the second meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held under the Chairmanship of the joint Secretary DoPT was circulated. Item No.3 of the Agenda for the said meeting reads as under:

“The MACP Scheme provides for placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay after 10,20 and 30 years of service. On the other hand the earlier ACP Scheme provided for placement to higher pay scale of the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the pay scale after 12 and 24 years of service taken from date of induction in service.”

15. Be that as it may, the principle enunciated and settled by the Tribunal/High Court for grant of ACP cannot be changed and the same principle would apply for grant of MACP to him. The only difference is of number of years required to be completed. We find no justification to take a different view in the matter

16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 9.8.2010, (Annexure A-1)qua the applicant, fixing his pay in PB-1 with grade pay of FR 2400/- under the second MACP, and the order dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure A-2) are hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the respondents are directed to grant second financial upgradation to the applicant under the MACPS from due date fixing his pay in the hierarchy of posts decided in his case earlier and to pay the resultant arrears without interest, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

17. The OA stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.”

6. The respondents have challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP NO.19387/2011 decided on 19.10.2011. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that there was no infirmity in the aforesaid order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. The relevant observations of the said order are extracted hereunder:

“Upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was kept in pay band-I, Rs.5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs.1,900/-, the scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/- was also kept in pay band-I with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and the scale of Rs.5,500/- 9,000/- was kept in pay band-II in pay scale of Rs.9,300- 34,800/- with grace pay of Rs.4,00/- increased to Rs.4,600/-. In terms of MACP Scheme, respondent no.1 was granted the lower scale by keeping in pay band –I of Rs.5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs.2,400/-. This was done in terms of order dated 09.08.2010. Accordingly, respondent No.1 approached the CAT contending that he is entitled to be granted the scale of Rs.5,500-9000/- towards the 2nd Financial Upgradation at par with the post of Hind Typist and LDC. Such claim of respondent No.1 has been upheld by the CAT in the impugned order dated 31.05.2011.”

7. In our considered view, the present OA is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of Chandigarh Bench, as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

8. In fact, the respondents have wrongly interpreted the terms and conditions mentioned in the MACP Scheme, issued by the Deptt. of Personnel & Training, in the case of the applicants. By the said Scheme, the eligible government servants are to be placed in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay and not merely in the next higher

next promotional post in the hierarchy, namely, the Assistants carrying the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and the grade of Rs.4200/-.

9. In view of the above position, this OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant scale of pay of Rs.9300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- attached to the said promotional post of Assistatn/OS from the due date to the applicants.

10. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within the period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the other conditions mentioned in the MACP Scheme.

There shall be no order as to costs.”

3. He has also submitted that following the aforesaid order, this Tribunal has passed similar orders in OA No.1493/2014 – Indian Ordnance Factories Gazetted Officers Association through its President Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh & others Vs. UOI & Ors, OA No.988/2014 – Shri Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors, OA No.864/2014 – Shri Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Secretary (NCERT) & Ors., and No.203/2014 – Narener Kumar, JE(Civil) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ORs. He has further stated that the OA No.864/2014 (supra) has been challenged by the respondents therein before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) No.3608/2014 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2014.

4. In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid orders. If their case is covered by them, they shall also be extended the same benefits under intimation to the applicants. The aforesaid direction
shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. For the sake of convenience of the Respondents, Registry is also directed to send a copy of this OA to them.

( Shekhar Agarwal)                                                                                                                                                                                    (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)

source-http://aiamshq.blogspot.in/2014/08/cat-principle-bench-new-delhi-directs.html