ORDER :

Regard being had to the similitude controversy involved in both the cases, they were heard analogously together and common order is being passed in both the cases.

2. Both Writ Petitions are arising out of the order dated 18th July 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in Original Application No.170/1805/2018 and Original Application No.170/1802/2018 respectively.

3. The facts of both cases reveal that the respondents/employees started their service career in the Military Engineering Service, Ministry of Defence, as Grade II Superintendent (B/R), a Civilian employee and on attaining the age of superannuation have retired from service on 31.03.2008 and 31.05.2008 respectively. The undisputed facts make it very clear that they were granted first upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) as well as Second Upgradation under the MACP scheme. The dispute arose only in respect of grant of III-MACPS benefits, which is granted to the employees after completion of 30 years of service. The Tribunal has allowed the original applications keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Balbir Singh Turn and Another, (2018) 11 SCC 99.

4. In the case of Balbir Singh (supra), the employee in question retired after 01.01.2006 but prior to 31.08.2008 and undisputedly the MACP Scheme came into force on account of resolution of the Central Government dated 30th August 2008 when Balbir Singh was no longer in service at the relevant point of time and therefore, the benefit was declined to him. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into account the MACP Scheme as it was going to effect grade pay and pay structure which was applicable with effect from 01.01.2006 has held that the employee was entitled for the grant of benefit under the MACP Scheme only after completion of thirty years of service.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the original applications.

6. The learned counsel for the Union of India argued before this court that in case of civilian employees and in case of Defence employees, there is a distinction under the MACP Scheme. However, he was not able to demonstrate such distinction before this court and therefore, in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal has rightly allowed the original application. Not only this, the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of M.P. Joseph v. Union of India and Others, [W.P.No.1763/2013, Dtd. 15.10.2018] have taken a similar view. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court has observed thus :

“7. There is no dispute in the present case that the petitioner is eligible for receipt of benefits under the MACP. The only dispute is whether the petitioner is required to be granted the benefits under the MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 as claimed by him in his Original Application No. 145 of 2013 or whether such benefits are due and payable to the petitioner with effect from 1st September, 2008 as contended by and on behalf of the respondents.

8. The sixth pay commission made recommendations with regard to Armed Forces Personnel. By a resolution dated 30th August, 2008, the Central Government resolved to accept such recommendations with regard to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) subject to certain modifications. Clause (i) of this resolution as relevant and the same reads as follows:-

"(i) Implementation of the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension, with effect from 1-1-2006 and revised rates of allowances (except dearness allowances/relief) with effect from 1-9-2008;"

9. As noted earlier, the only issue which arises in the present petition is whether the benefit u