The Tribunal ruled that the applicant is entitled to the 1st MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and that the cancellation of this benefit was unjustified.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme - Applicant sought to quash orders cancelling his financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and to prevent recovery of amounts already paid - The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the 1st MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- as per the Office Order dated 08.09.2015, which was wrongly cancelled - The impugned orders were quashed. (Paras 20, 21)

(B) MACP Scheme - Eligibility for financial upgradation - The Tribunal clarified that if an employee is granted pay protection upon transfer, they are not entitled to the 1st MACP unless specified otherwise in the rules. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) Recovery of amounts - The Tribunal ruled that recovery of excess amounts paid to the applicant was unjustified, especially when the applicant had already been granted the benefits under the MACP Scheme. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, initially appointed as ECRC, was granted financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, which was later cancelled by the Railway authorities citing pay protection. The applicant challenged this cancellation, leading to the current proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the cancellation of the financial upgradation was erroneous and that the applicant was entitled to the benefits under the MACP Scheme.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant was entitled to the 1st MACP despite being granted pay protection and whether the cancellation of the MACP was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to the 1st MACP as the cancellation was based on incorrect application of the rules regarding pay protection and MACP eligibility.

Result: The application was partly allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed.

ORDER (ORAL)

Per: Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, (J):

1. Ld Counsel for both the parties are present.

2. Heard.

3. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

“a) To set aside and quash Impugned letter No.SER/P-HQ/T/CC/CAT/OA No.283 of 2019/SR dated 15.04.2019 issued by Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach.

b) To set aside and quash Impugned Estt. Srl. No. 67/2017 dated 16.05.17 issued by Sr. Personnel Officer (HQ) for Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway.

c) To set aside and quash Impugned Order No. PC-V/2009/MCP/9/Sr dated 18.04.2016 issued by Dy. Director, Pay Commission (V), Railway Board.

d) To direct the respondents to allow the applicant to enjoy the Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as granted to him vide Office Order No.14 of 2015 dated 08.09.2015.

e) To direct the respondents not to make any recovery from the applicant and to refund any amount if already recovered f) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.”

4. Ld Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially appointed as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk (ECRC) on 05.05.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Asstt. Reservation Supervisor in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in the year 2004 and in compliance to the Order dtd. 04.09.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA/1273/2015, he was granted 1^st financial upgradation as per MACP Scheme vide Office Memorandum dtd. 08.09.2015. Subsequently the applicant was promoted to the post of Reservation Supervisor Grade- II w.e.f. 20.07.2018. Thereafter vide Office Order No. 06 of 2019, dtd. 11.02.2019, issued by the Sr. Personnel Officer (T) for Principal Chief Personnel Officer, S E Rly, the financial upgradation under MACP Scheme which was granted to the applicant w.e.f. 01.09.2008 had been cancelled. The said order is quoted inter alia:

"The Office Order No. 14 of 2015 dated 8.9.15 where in, Sri Subrata Roy, ECRC was granted financial upgradation under MACP scheme w.e.f. 1.9.08, is hereby treated as cancelled in terms of CPO/GRC's Estt. Srl.No. 67/17.”

5. Ld Counsel for the applicant submits that being aggrieved with the said order the applicant had made a representation before the competent authority. However, the same was not disposed of. Being aggrieved with the same the applicant preferred an OA before this Tribunal being No. 283 of 2019 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dtd. 05.03.2019 with inter alia direction and observation:

“5. I am quite satisfied with the submission made by Mr. Sinha and, accordingly, while quashing Annexure-A/7, at this stage of admission, I dispose of this O.A. by making it clear that the representation, as claimed by the applicant under Annexure- A/8 addressed to the Pr. C.P.O. (Respondent No. 2) is still pending consideration, shall be considered by Respondent No. 2 and a reasoned and a reasoned and speaking order be issued to the applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. I also make it clear that, although the order of this Tribunal has reached finality, if the Official Respondents are of the view that they have given benefit of financial upgradation inadvertently as per order of this Tribunal still then they have to give reasonable opportunity to the applicant and till such time no further coercive action like reducing pay scale or whatsoever will be taken against the applicant. Applicant is granted liberty to approach this Tribunal if outcome of Annexure-A/8 is not palatable to his ultimate expectation.

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this O.A. stands disposed of. No costs.

7. As prayed for by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, copy of this order, along with paperbook be transmitted to Respondent No. 2, for which, he undertakes to deposit the cost with the Registry within a week.

8. Copies of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3575

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. Manish Garg, Mr. Anindo Majumdar, JJSubrata Roy – AppellantVersusS E Railway – RespondentO.A./561/2019

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant is entitled to the 1st MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and that the cancellation of this benefit was unjustified.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, Mr. Anindo Majumdar, JJ
Subrata Roy – Appellant
Versus
S E Railway – Respondent
O.A./561/2019