Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3856
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
Mahesh Chandra Trivedi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Applications No. 200/001173/2015|200/00066/2016|200/00642/2016|200/00997/2016|200/01114/2016
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pay and Allowances
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) ACP/MACP Schemes - Government policy - Interference by courts - Recommendations of Pay Commission accepted and implemented; no arbitrariness warranting judicial intervention; solution lies in cadre restructuring, not individual options or pay parity. (Para 7.1)
Facts of the case:
Group of serving and retired Assistant Accounts Officers, initially appointed as clerks and promoted via departmental exams, sought extension of grade pay Rs.5400/- benefits granted to similarly situated employees by another Tribunal Bench (upheld up to Supreme Court). They claimed parity as their subordinates (Senior Accountants) drew higher grade pay due to pre-2008 ACP benefits. Representations rejected mechanically; OAs filed for directions to implement parity.
Findings of Court:
MACP upgradation follows grade pay hierarchy, not promotional hierarchy; no pay anomaly as seniors and juniors not identically placed; claims covered by binding Supreme Court and High Court judgments rejecting similar relief.
Issues: Whether AAOs entitled to stepping up of grade pay to Rs.5400/- at par with subordinates (Senior Accountants) who benefited from pre-MACP ACP scheme; validity of rejecting parity claims relying on judicial precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: MACP is fallback for stagnation, personal to employee, without relevance to seniority or promotional hierarchy; no stepping up where juniors drew higher pay pre-promotion or due to scheme differences; courts cannot interfere with implemented Pay Commission policy absent arbitrariness.
Result: Original Applications dismissed. No costs.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Neha Bhatia, Shri Deepak Panjwani
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties and case details listed (Para 1) |
| 2. applicants seek grade pay parity benefits (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. applicants' service history and prior judgments (Para 4) |
| 4. pay stepping up rules under dop&t (Para 7) |
| 5. supreme court and high court reject claims (Para 8) |
| 6. original applications dismissed (Para 9 , 10) |
COMMON O R D E R
BY JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JM;
The issue involved in all five Original Applications are the same. Hence, these are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts, stated in Original Application No.200/01173/2015 is being discussed.
2. Through these Original Applications, the applicants are seeking a similar direction to the respondents to extend the benefits granted to the applicants in O.A. No. 966/2009 (Annexure A-4) by the Madras Bench of this Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed as clerks and having been qualified in the departmental examinations at various stages and have been promoted to the respective posts against which they are serving. The applicant No.1 and 2 are serving as Account Officers, applicant No 3,4,8,9,10 and 11 are working as AAOs and the applicants No. 5,6,7 and 12 have attained the age of superannuation from the post of AAOS. The applicants have acquired the aforesaid promotions by contesting the departmental examinations. Chart showing contested the departmental examinations and they were stagnated to the level of senior accountants. Thus upon Introduction of MACP Scheme while implementing the recommendation of the VI pay commission, the financial upgradations were extended to the said persons and their grade pay was fixed at Rs. 5400/- p.m. The applicants were drawing a grade pay of Rs. 4800/- per month. Upon initiation of various similarly situated employees approaching the Bench of this Court at Chennai in O.A. No. 966/2009, seeking stepping up of their grade pay at par with their juniors, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow their OA. Copy of the order passed in the said OA is filed as Annexure A-4. The respondents approached Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No 18612/2011 against the said order passed by this Madras Bench, the court dismissed the Writ Petition. The respondents assailed the said order before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 11103/2014 and the same was also rejected. Copy of the order passed in the SLP is filed as Annexure A-5. Pursuant thereto, the said order was implemented by the respondents for the applicants having approached the said courts only. Copy of the order directing for implementation of the said order is filed as Annexure A-6. The applicants represented the respondents through their Association on 19.11.2014 seeking extension of the said benefit to them as well in the light of the aforesaid judgments. Bangalore seeking the same relief which was allowed directing the respondents to extend the benefit to the applicants therein within 2 months Copy of the said order is filed as Annexure A-8. The applicants approached the respondents on 30.10.2015 by making another representation referring the said judgments as well as the implementation order issued in the case of the employees at Madras but the respondents rejected the said representation in a highly mechanical manner without application of mind vide their order dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure A-1). Hence these Original Applications.
4. Upon notice the respondents have filed their reply wherein it is submitted that the applicants are claiming for extension of Grade Pay of Rs 5400/- as granted to their subordinate Senior Accountants some of whom are drawing Grade pay of Rs 5400/-. According to the applicant the O.A. No 966 & 967/2009 has been decided by the this Tribunal at Chennai and the financial benefits were granted to all AAOs of C&AG Office, Chennai and the Tribunal had granted the benefit of the judgment to the applicants to the O.A. According to the applicant, some of the applicants were initially ap
