IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6554 of 2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus SMT. ARUNA THAKUR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Naveen Kumar Salunke - Advocate for the respondent.

WITH MISC. PETITION No. 6555 of 2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus ANIMA DAS Appearance:

Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Naveen Kumar Salunke - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The Union of India and others have filed these miscellaneous petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 15.05.2025 and 02.05.2025, whereby O.A. No.851/2014 and O.A. No.945/2016 have been allowed.

2. The issues involved in these miscellaneous petitions are common;

thus, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of M.P. No.6554/2025 are being taken to decide the controversy involved therein.

The facts of the case, in short, are as follows:

3. That the applicant No. 1 was appointed to the post of Record Supplier on 27.07.1982 and was given the benefit of 1st ACP in the year 1999. A higher pay scale was introduced in the year 2006. The benefit of the

2nd ACP has not been granted to him.

4. That the applicant No.2 was appointed on the Fireman Grade Il on

01.01.1983 and was granted promotion to the post of Record Supplier. At present, he is working on the post of Blue Printer, a post which is equivalent to the post of Record Supplier. After the implementation of the arbitration award, since the post of Fireman Grade II was merged with the post of Record Supplier; therefore, the said promotion was not considered as promotion and the benefit of 1st ACP was given in the month of September 1999. Higher Pay scale has been given in the year 2007; however, the benefit of the 2nd ACP has been refused.

5. That the applicant No. 3 was appointed to the post of Record Supplier on 24.07.1984 and she has retired from service from the same post on 31.10.2008. The 1st ACP was granted in the year 1999, and a higher pay scale was granted in the month of July 2006, but the benefit of the 2nd ACP has been refused.

6. The grievance of the applicants before the Tribunal was that they were not granted the benefit of 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4200 because of the abolition of the post of Tracer and Chargeman Grade II (GP 4200). They became eligible for promotion to the aforesaid posts, but the said posts were declared "Dying Cadre", vide SRO No.54 issued in the month of April 2006.

7. DOPT issued an Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1999 establishing that in the absence of the defined hierarchical grade, the financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme should be granted only to the immediate next higher pay scale and not beyond. Admittedly, the next higher pay scale of the post of Tracer was liable to be given to the applicants, even when the post has been abolished.

8. The benefit of the ACP or, later on, the MACP Scheme was made applicable to those employees who could not get a chance of promotion after completion of 12 years and 24 years of service. The denial of a chance of promotion is due to stagnation or delay in promotion, etc. The non- availability of the post is also one of the criteria for the grant of the benefit of the ACP/MACP Scheme.

9. Due to the implementation of CPWD Arbitration Award, the pay scale of different posts were revised, since the pay scale of Tracer became equivalent to the post of Draftsman, and the pay scale of Draftsman became equivalent to the post of Chargeman Grade II; therefore, the Ministry of Defence, instead of redesignating the same as Draftsman, decided to abolish the post of Tracer. Hence, no promotional post became available for Record Keeper and the Blue Printer like respondents/applicants.

10. The similarly affected person approached the Central Admin