Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3400
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J, Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, ACJ
Prasanna Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
East Coast Railway – Respondent
O.A./318/2021
Mr. T Rath, Mr R S Pattanaik
Training periods are to be considered as regular service for the purpose of granting MACP benefits.
Headnote:(A) Railway Board's MACP Scheme - RBE No. 101/2009, RBE No. 100/2012 - The applicant challenged the rejection of his request for the 3rd MACP, arguing that his training period should count towards service duration. The Tribunal found that the applicant's training period was treated as continuous service, thus entitling him to the 3rd MACP. (Paras 1, 6, 8)
(B) Legal Principles - The Tribunal reaffirmed that training periods can be considered as regular service for MACP eligibility, aligning with prior decisions. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, appointed as Trainee ASM in 1984, sought the 3rd MACP after completing 30 years of service, which was denied based on the exclusion of his training period.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed the rejection of the 3rd MACP, directing its grant effective from 30.04.2020, along with arrears.
Issues: The main issue was whether the training period should be included in the calculation for MACP eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the training period is to be considered as part of the service for MACP, supported by previous rulings.
Result: OA allowed.
ORDER
Hon’bleMr.Pramod Kumar Das, A.M.
The applicant challenging the order dated 23.07.2020 & 29.04.2021 wherein his prayer for 3rd MACP has been rejected has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
1. Admit the original application;
2. Call for the records
3. (a) Quash the impugned order dated 23.07.2020 & 29.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 under Annexures A/8 & A/9 respectively, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law being contrary to RBE No. 101/2009 dated 10.06.2009 and corresponding circular dated 29.12.2011 and dated 27.06.2014 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Annexure A/10 series & Annexure A/11 respectively.
(b) Further the respondents be accordingly directed to extend the 3rd MACP scheme computing 30 (thirty) years of service of the applicant with effect from the date of initial appointment as ASM i.e. w.e.f. 01.08.1984 or as Traffic Apprentice w.e.f. 06.04.1990 (inclusive of training period) in terms of RBE No. 101/2009 and corresponding circular dated 29.12.2011 and dated 27.06.2014 and judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court under Annexure A/10 series & Annexure A/11 respectively with all other consequential service benefits within a reasonable time to be stipulated by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
(c) And also quash the clarifications under Annexure R/3 & R/7 and pass any other appropriate order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant is that he was appointed as Trainee ASM vide order dated 27.06.1984 and he joined on 01.08.1984. It is submitted that in pursuance to a fresh advertisement the applicant had applied for the post of Traffic Apprentice and an order of appointment was issued by the Office of Chief Personnel Officer, Kolkata vide order dated 23.08.1989. The applicant was however promoted in his previous job vide order dated 23.03.1990. It is submitted that vide order dated 21.03.1990, the applicant was directed by authorities to report at Garden Reach and after he was spared vide order dated 04.04.1990, the applicant joined at garden reach on 05.04.1990 and on the same day he was spared to join at ZTS/SINI. The applicant submitted his joining on 06.04.1990 at ZTS/SINI on 06.04.1990 and after completion of two years training at ZTS/SNY, the applicant joined at BSP on 20.05.1992 and worked as AYM/Bhalai. It is submitted that applicant joined at East Coast Railway vide order dated 03.07.1997 and then was promoted to the pay scale of Rs. 5500- 9000/- vide order dated 22.03.2000. It is submitted that the applicant was again promoted to the post TI Grade I vide order dated 22.12.2003 and then was granted 2nd MACP w.e.f. 24.03.2012 vide order dated 07.05.2014. It is submitted that Railway Board vide RBE No. 26 of 2020 dated 25.02.2020 decided that benefit of MACP shall be admissible to the Station Masters w.e.f. 16.02.2018 ignoring their promotion from ASM to SM. It is submitted that applicant vide representation dated 25.06.2020 requested for grant of 3rd MACP which was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 23.07.2020. It is submitted that the applicant again raised grievance for 3rd MACP treating his initial appointment as 06.04.1990 but the said was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 29.04.2021 on the ground that his training period shall be excluded for the purpose of granting MACP. The applicant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 763/2015 (Ashok Kumar Barikvs UOI &ors), WP A No. 3080 of 2018 (Union of India vrsJitendra Singh) and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 22186-22188/2018 . Hence the OA.
3. The respondents in their counter inter alia averred that as per RBE No. 100/2012 dated 12.09.2012 if the relevant RRs (recruitment rules) provide for filling up of vacancies in a grade by direct recruitment, induction of an employee to that grade th
