Placement as Master Craftsman does not constitute a promotion; hence employees remain eligible for financial upgradation under the MACP despite the 6th Pay Commission's pay scale revisions.

JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.

1. Parties are represented by their respective learned counsels.

2. In this batch of petitions, the Government has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of common order of tribunal dated 22.06.2016, whereby O.A No. 350/01517/2014, O.A. No. 350/01523/2014, O.A. No. 350/01524/2014 and 350/01525/2014 were decided.

3. The tribunal opined that the applicants before them got the post of Master Craftsman as a ‘placement’ before 01.01.2006. The said ‘placement’ was not in the stream of ‘promotion’ and hence cannot be treated as promotion/upgradation. Thus, tribunal directed that each of the applicants before it will get one extra increment in Pay Band of PB-II of GP Rs. 4200/-. Assailing this direction, the present petitions are filed.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS:

4. Learned counsel for the department submits that no doubt, the present respondents were given the post of Master Craftsman on placement before 01.01.2006 but the fact remains is that from 01.01.2006 6th Pay Commission’s recommendations came into being and implemented. Thus, the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- attached to the post of Master Craftsman before 01.01.2006 stood revised and basic pay became Rs. 9300/- with GP Rs.4200/-.

5. By taking this Court to different paragraphs of impugned order, learned counsel for the department submits that the tribunal erred in not realising that the applicants before it got the benefit of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the post of Master Craftsman became a promotional post. Thus, they were not entitled to get one extra increment in the Pay Band of PB-II in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL APPLICANTS

6. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the facts of one of the matters (OA No. 350/1517/2014) to bolster the submission that the said writ petitioner was appointed as Semi-Skilled Millwright on 22.01.1992. Thereafter, he was placed in the Skilled Grade on 31.01.1994 and to Highly Skilled Grade/ Millwright on 09.02.1999. This career progression as High Skilled Grade/ Millwright is the only promotion, which he got in his career before becoming Master Craftsman on 17.06.2025 on ‘placement’. The post of Master Craftsman carried pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-.

7. The petitioners preferred representations on 07.07.2014 praying that their cases be treated for grant of upgradation under MACP after completion of 10 years of service from the date they got the benefit of promotion as Highly Skilled Grade/ Millwright or on the equivalent post. The said representations were rejected on 20.08.2014 and this rejection became subject matter of challenge before the tribunal. The tribunal, after completion of pleadings and hearing the parties came to hold that the applicants therein occupied the post of Master Craftsman on ‘placement’ and not on ‘promotion’ and therefore, they are entitled to get the aforesaid benefit.

8. Learned counsel for applicants also placed reliance on certain paragraphs of the impugned order of the tribunal to show that the tribunal considered the rival contentions in great detail and assigned adequate reasons for the conclusions. Thus, there is no procedural infirmity or perversity in the order. Heavy reliance is placed on the communication dated 20.05.2003 issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India, wherein it was clarified that post of Master Craftsman is outside the hierarchy of the promotional avenues and therefore, it shall not be treated as promotion. Indeed, it will be a placement, which will not deprive the