Employees completing 24 years of service before 31.08.2008 are entitled to 2nd ACP in GP Rs.2400 and 3rd MACP in GP Rs.2800, ignoring redundant upgradations caused by pay scale mergers, to ensure non-discriminatory treatment in the promotional hierarchy.

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. In the above captioned 04 Original Applications, the facts, relief claimed and the legal issue involved are similar, therefore, these are being disposed of by a common order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The sole controversy herein is with regard to entitlement of applicants for grant of 2^nd ACP on completion of their 12 years of service prior to 31.08.2008 when the ACP Scheme dated 09.08.1999 was still in operation, and further 3^rd upgradation under MACP on completion of 30 years of service. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings are extracted from O.A. No. 1033/2021, which is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the instant controversy. The relief claimed is as under:-

(i) That the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure A-1), letters dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure A-2), and dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure A-3), be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) That it be declared that the applicants are entitled for 2nd ACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- under the old ACP Scheme in the hierarchy of posts from completion of 24 years of service, as per similar orders passed in the Ordnance Depots dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure A-12) and 30.07.2018 (Annexure A-13) and also as per law laid down by the C.A.T. Principal Bench in D.S. Rawat v. UOI & Ors. (OA No. 3038/2013) decided on 11.03.2015, and consequently 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- on completion of 30 years or 01.09.2008, whichever is later, with all consequential benefits.

2. The summarized facts, as extracted from O.A. No. 1033/2021) are that the applicants initially joined the respondent department as Digitally signed Mazdoor (Unskilled) between 1972 and 1980 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.196-232 under the control of respondent No.3. Upon implementation of the 4th CPC, they were placed in the scale of Rs.750-940 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and thereafter in Rs.2550-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Under the ACP Scheme dated 09.08.1999 (Annexure A-4), which remained operative up to 31.08.2008, they were granted 1st ACP/promotion in the scale of Rs.2650-4000 and 2nd ACP in Rs.3050- 4590 on completion of 24 years of service. With the implementation of the 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the pre-revised Group „D‟ scales were merged in Pay Band-1 i.e. Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.1800/-, re-designating the post as Tradesman Mate.

3. It is pleaded that due to merger of unskilled and semi-skilled cadres w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the earlier promotions/financial upgradations became redundant in terms of para 5 of the MACP Scheme (Annexure A- 5). DoP&T clarifications dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure A-6) and 09.09.2010 (Annexure A-7) reiterated that ACP benefits were admissible up to 31.08.2008. The Engineer-in-Chief‟s Branch letter dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure A-8) and 30.04.2015 (Annexure A-9) directed grant of 1st ACP in GP Rs.1900 and 2nd ACP in GP Rs.2400 to those completing 12 and 24 years up to 31.08.2008. The applicants, on completion of 30 years of service, were entitled to 3^rd MACP in G.P. of Rs.2800/-. The applicants submitted representation dated 27.06.2021 (Annexure A-11), which came to be rejected vide order dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure A-1) relying upon letter dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure A-3), holding that they were entitled only to Grade Pays of Rs.1900, Rs.2000 and Rs.2400 under MACP. Hence, the present OA. Digitally signed

4. The applicants contend that since they completed 24 years of regular service prior to 31.08.2008, their case is governed by the ACP Scheme dated 09.08.1999 and not by MACP. In view of merger w.e.f. 01.01.2006, earlier upgradations carrying identical Grade Pay are liable to be ignored and 2nd ACP must be granted in the promotional hierarchy in GP Rs.2400, followed by 3rd MACP in GP Rs.2800 on completion of 30 years. They place reliance upon the decision of the Principal Bench in D.S. Rawat v. Union of India, affirmed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Union of India v. K.T. Akhtar , and furth