Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.2703/2019 Order reserved on : 11.12.2025 Order pronounced on : 06.01.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Brij Mohan aged about 77 years, Son of late Shri Pooran Chand, Retd. Chief Inspector Wireless Traffic (CIWT)

In Group 'C' Northern Railway Construction HQ, Kashmere Gate, DELHI-110006 Resident of: 155-c, j&k Pocket, Dilshad Garden, DELHI-110095:

..... Applicant (In person)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through The Chairman, Railway Board, (Since Deleted);

2. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, NEW DELHI – 110 001;

3. The Chief Administrative Officer (C), Northern Railway Construction HQ, Kashmere Gate DELHI-110006.

..... Respondents (By Advocate : Ms. Sumedha Sharma)

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

The applicant in the present OA joined the Northern Railway on 29.10.1965. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Inspector Wireless (Traffic) on 25.07.1990. He was extended 1st ACP on 01.10.1999. He was further promoted to the post of Chief Inspector Wireless (Traffic) w.e.f. 10.12.2003. The applicant was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2006 in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, on which date he completed 40 years, 5 months and 5 days of service. However, he did not receive 2nd and 3rd financial upgradation on completion of 30 years i.e. much before his retirement and being in service on the effective date of the recommendation of 6^th CPC.

2. The applicant who appears in person submitted that the effective date of MACP has been subject matter of judicial review and the Hon‘ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 08.12.2017 in the matter of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn &

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Anr. in Civil Appeal Diary No.3744/2016 rejected the

contention of the Govt. that the MACP was applicable

only w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and, therefore, the respondents therein who had retired prior to the said date were not entitled to the benefit of the MACP, and held as under :-

―10. As already held by us above, there can be no dispute that grant of ACP is part of the pay structure. It affects the pay of the employee and he gets a higher grade pay even though it may be in the same pay band. It has been strenuously urged by Col. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the UOI that the Government took the decision to make the Scheme applicable from 01.09.2008 because many employees would have lost out in case the MACP was made applicable from 01.01.2006 and they would have had to refund the excess amount, if any, paid to them. His argument is that under the old Scheme if somebody got the benefit of the ACP he was put in the higher scale of pay. After merger of pay scales into pay bands an employee is only entitled to higher grade pay which may be lower than the next pay band. Therefore, there may be many employees who may suffer.

11. We are only concerned with the interpretation of the Resolution of the Government which clearly states that the recommendations of 6th CPC as modified and accepted by the Central Government in so far as they relate to pay structure, pay scales, grade pay etc. will apply from 01.01.2006. There may be some gainers and some losers but the intention of the Government was clear that this Scheme which is part of the pay structure would apply from 01.01.2006. We may also point out that the Resolution dated 30.08.2008 whereby the Digitally signed by recommendation of the Pay Commission has

recommendations with regard to pay

structure, pay scales, grade pay etc. have

been made applicable from 01.01.2006. This is a decision of the Cabinet. This decision could not have been modified by issuing executive instruction. The letter dated 30.05.2011 flies in the face of the Cabinet decision reflected in the Resolution dated 30.08.2008. Thus, administrative instruction dated 30.05.2011 is totally ultra vires the Resolution of the Government.‖

3. In view