JUDGMENT :  
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of para no. 20 of the Annexure-I to the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure P-3) prohibiting step up of pay at level of pay of juniors is fixed and order dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-4) and select list of MACP for 2015-16 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure P-6) to the extent same have placed the petitioners in MACP-III while granting pay of Rs, 4600/- after their promotion to the post of Suptd. Br. II in violation of clarification by PCDA (BR) vide letter dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-9) and letter dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P-10) issued by the DGBR-respondent no. 2.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioners were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) between 1989 and 1995. Their normal promotional channel from LDC is to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). Under the ACP Scheme introduced pursuant to the 5th Central Pay Commission, the petitioners, having not received promotion within 12 years, were granted ACP-I in the pay scale of Rs.4000–6000/-, attached to the post of UDC.

3. During service, the petitioners acquired a Diploma in Civil Engineering from CME, which entitled them to promotion by a special channel, to the post of Superintendent BR-II, later redesignated as JE (Civil), carrying a higher and distinct pay scale of Rs.5000–8000/-, subsequently revised to Rs.9300– 34800/- with Grade Pay Rs.4200/-.

4. Several employees junior to the petitioners were appointed as LDCs later in point of time, acquired the CME Diploma subsequently, and were promoted to the post of Suptd. BR-II/JE (Civil) after the petitioners. The petitioners are admittedly senior to them in the LDC seniority list. With the introduction of the MACP Scheme pursuant to the 6th Central Pay Commission, financial upgradations became admissible after 10, 20, and 30 years of service in the next hierarchical grade pay. The MACP Scheme has been made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

5. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (in short as PCDA (BR)), vide clarification dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-9), held that promotion from LDC to Suptd. BR-II/JE (Civil) on the basis of acquiring CME Diploma shall be treated as first financial upgradation, and the earlier ACP-I granted in the UDC pay scale was to be ignored. This clarification was directed to be implemented by the DGBR-respondent no. 2. Despite the above clarification, when the petitioners were granted Grade Pay Rs.4600/-, they were shown as having received MACP-III, whereas their juniors, granted the same Grade Pay Rs.4600/-, were correctly placed in MACP-II. The respondent no. 2 wrote to the PCDA (BR) vide letter dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-13), themselves acknowledging the existence of an anomaly, as seniors were placed in MACP-III while juniors were placed in MACP-II at the same grade pay. Representations made by the petitioners seeking correction were not decided. Hence, the present petition.

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioners 

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are admittedly senior in the LDC cadre to R. Krishna Murthi and others and that the said juniors were promoted to the post of Suptd. BR-II/JE (Civil) after the petitioners.

7. It is contended that the PCDA (BR), vide clarification dated 30.11.2012, has categorically clarified that promotion from LDC to Suptd. BR-II/JE (Civil) on acquisition of CME Diploma is to be treated as first financial upgradation, and that the earlier ACP-I granted in the UDC pay scale is required to be ignored for the purpose of further ACP/MACP benefits.

8. Learned counsel has argued that despite the said clarification having been adopted by the DGBR vide letter dated 10.12.2012, the petitioners were wrongly treated as having availed three financial upgradations, and were consequently placed in MACP-III while granting them Grade Pay Rs.4600/-.

9. It is further argued that the jun