IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a transition involving higher pay and service requirements constitutes a promotion, affecting eligibility for benefits under the MACP Scheme.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2021, whereby the Original Application (OA), preferred by the respondents, was allowed and the petitioners were directed not to count the promotion from Junior Accounts Assistant (for short ‘JAA’) to Accounts Assistant (for short ‘AA’) as promotion and consider the same as up-gradation due to restructuring.

2. It is contended by learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner-Union of India, that Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur placed reliance on the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, which order was upheld by the Division Bench of Madars High Court and SLP, preferred against the said order, was dismissed by the Apex Court.

3. It is contended that Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and Madras High Court did not consider the relevant Rules while deciding the application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents were working as Junior Accounts Assistant. They were promoted as Accounts Assistant and in the order itself, it was mentioned that they are being promoted. It is also contended that there was a change in pay-scale on promotion from JAA to AA. It is further contended that there were certain requisites for being considered as promoted i.e. they were required to complete three years’ service in the grade and they were also required to pass Appendix-II Examination.

5. It is argued that under the MACP Scheme, no one, who has been given three promotions, was entitled to MACP benefit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to Indian Railways Establishment Manual, wherein in Para 171(5), it is provided that the posts in the grade of AA, in scale Rs.1400-2600 will be filled by promotion of JAA in scale Rs.1200-2040, after they have completed three years service in the grade and passed Appendix-II Examination.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Nand & Ors. Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 199, The Railway Board and Ors. Vs. P.R. Subramaniyam & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 284. The reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 384.

8. It is contended that the order passed by the Apex Court was merely dismissal of SLP and the same cannot be said to be laying down of law. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359, wherein the Apex Court held that mere dismissal of SLP does not amount to upholding of the order, from which, leave to appeal is sought.

9. It is contended that Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench was also seized with the matter, wherein Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, while dealing with the OA No. 335/2007 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, held it to be per incuriam, as Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench had not considered the Rules, which are framed by Railways and are treated to be Rules under Article 309 of Constitution of India.

10. Learned counsel, appearing for the applicants-respondents, has vehemently opposed the writ petition. It is contended that no promotion orders were passed, rather there was restructuring of the post and out of 100 posts of JAA, 80 posts were reconstituted as AA.

11. It is also contended that benefit of MACP Scheme cannot be withdrawn as appointment of the respondents, on the post of AA, cannot be treated as promotion.

12. It is further contended that judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Madars Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court and SLP, preferred by Union of India was dismissed by the Apex Court and the case of the applicants is akin to the case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, therefore, lea