Timely consideration of employee grievances regarding pay anomalies is essential to ensure adherence to career progression policies.

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

“To direct the 3^rd respondent to consider the representations dated 18.01.2024 and 27.08.2024 of the applicant within a reasonable period and to declare that the applicant is entitled for the GP of Rs. 4800 and Rs. 5400 to be stepped up with effect from 20.04.2006 and 20.04.2010 respectively, with all consequential benefits.”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants:

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Excise (Employee Code: 2003), served from 1983 until his retirement in 2018. He is seeking corrective action regarding a pay anomaly related to the implementation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes, in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions and applicable policies. The applicant contends that the ACP and MACP schemes, designed to address stagnation and promote career progression, resulted in senior employees being deprived of rightful pay when their juniors received higher pay after pay scale revisions. Despite raising the issue in 1999 and judicial rulings on the matter, no corrective action has been taken. The applicant was promoted to Inspector of Central Excise in 1993 with a Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 4600 and received the 3rd MACP in 2010, upgrading his GP to Rs.

4800. However, his junior, Mr. R.G. Ramasamy, was granted a higher pay scale from 2006, leading to a pay anomaly where the junior had a higher GP than the senior. The applicant is requesting his GP to be stepped up from 2006 and 2010 to match his junior's pay. The applicant relies on the Supreme Court ruling ( Civil Appeal Nos. 2087-2088 of 2022 ) directing that senior officers' pay be stepped up when juniors receive higher pay due to ACP/MACP upgradation. The representations submitted by the applicant in this regard on 18.01.2024 and 27.08.2024 are still pending before the respondents for consideration. Hence, this Original Application is filed seeking the above relief.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, M/s M.S. Ram Prasad and Mr. K. Rajendran who takes notice for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has made representations on 18.01.2024 and 27.08.2024 (Annexures A8 & A9) to the respondents and till now the respondents have not passed any order. Therefore, he pleaded for a suitable direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations within a time which will suffice at present.

5. In the above circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the competent authority among respondents to consider the representations of the applicant dated 18.01.2024 and 27.08.2024 (Annexures A8 & A9) and pass an appropriate speaking and well-reasoned order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Tribunal is not entering into the merits of the issue.

6. With the above direction the OA is disposed of, at the admission stage.

(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (M. Swaminathan)

Member (A) Member (J)

20.01.2025 AS