2023 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1733
OA No. 361/2014
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No. 361/2014
Order reserved on: 15.02.2023
Date of order: 24.02.2023
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A)
HON’BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J)
SMT. PUSHPA SHARMA Wife of Late Shri Lal Chand Sharma,
aged about 51 years, resident of L-24-B, Staff Line Railway
Colony, Beawar Road, Ajmer and presently working as Field
Worker / Compilation Clerk (Family Welfare) under Chief
Medical Superintendent, North Western Railway, Ajmer
Division, Ajmer.
…Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri C.B. Sharma)
Versus
1.
Union of India, through General Manager, North Western
Zone, North Western Railway (Head Quarter), Near
Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2.
Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
3.
Chief Medical Superintendent, North Western Railway,
Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
…Respondents
(By Adv: Shri Anand Sharma)
OA No. 361/2014
2
Per Mrs. Hina P. Shah
The Original Application No. 29/2014 has been filed by
the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
(i)
That the respondents may be directed to hold
good benefits of financial upgradation allowed
vide order dated 16/12/2009 (Annexure-A/11)
with due fixation by quashing order dated
03/06/2014 (Annexure-A/1) with the order
dated 09/04/2014 (Annexure-A/5) and order
dated 03/01/2014 (Annexure-A/13) with all
consequential benefits.
OR
Respondents be directed to allowed benefits of
regular promotion as denied vide order dated
04/04/2011 (Annexure-A/12) in the pay band
Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay Rs. 4200 instead
of pay band Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs.
2800 with due fixation of pay including arrears
of pay & allowances and order dated 04/04/2011
be amended to the extent with all consequential
benefits.
(ii)
That the respondents be further not to recover
any amount from the applicant in pursuance to
order
dated
03/06/2014
(Annexure-A/1),
09/04/2014 (Annexure-A/4) and 03/01/2014
(Annexure-A/13) with all consequential benefits.
(iii)
Any other order, direction or relief may be
passed in favour of the applicant which may be
deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(iv)
That the costs of this application may be
awarded.
3
2(a). The applicant was working on the post of Field Worker
(Female) in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and was further
promoted as Senior Field Worker vide order dated 14.07.1999
in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. She was further promoted to
the Compilation Clerk instead of Lady Health Visitor in the
scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. Thereafter, respondents vide order
dated 13.09.2007 fixed the pay of the applicant in the scale
of Rs. 5000-8000/-. Due to family circumstances, applicant
refused the above promotion and so respondents vide order
dated 26.12.2007 after acceptance of refusal, debarred the
applicant from promotion for one year.
2(b). After recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission,
Government of India, promulgated Modified Assured Career
Progression
(MACP)
Scheme
for
Central
Government
employees for placement in higher scale after completion of
10, 20 and 30 years of service. In consideration of the
scheme, respondent No. 2 placed the applicant in grade pay
of Rs. 2800/- instead of Rs. 4200/- though applicant had
spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay.
Thereafter, applicant was allowed due fixation of pay in Pay
Band – 5200-20200/- with grade pay Rs. 2800/- and
promoted to the post of Compilation Clerk vide order dated
04.04.2011, but the benefits under MACP Scheme were not
4
paid to the applicant. The applicant was not allowed any
benefits of promotion though the applicant was entitled for
Pay Band – 9300-34800/- with grade pay Rs. 4200/- which
was corresponding to the old scale Rs. 5000-8000/-, but
respondents allowed next grade pay Rs. 2800/- instead.
2(c). Thereafter, respondents without any basis vide order
dated 03.01.2014 cancelled the benefits of second financial
up-gradation w.e.f. 26.06.2009 of the applicant on the
ground that she refused promotion in the year 2007. The
applicant, thereafter, made a request against cancellation of
the benefits granted to her vide her representation dated
10.03.2014 stating that refusal of promotion was prior to
applicability of MACP Scheme and applicant was due for
promotion after one year, but respondents did not allow the
same.
2(d). Since, no reply was brought to the notice of the
applicant on her said representation, she filed an Original
Application No. 246/2014 before this Tribunal and this
Tribunal vide order dated 23.04.2014 directed the respondent
No. 2 to decide the representation of the applicant. The
respondents
without
due
consideration
rejected
the
representation vide order dated 03.06.2014 stating that the
5
benefits of financial up-gradation were rightly cancelled thus,
aggrieved by the action of the respondents in cancelling the
be