Union of India v. Bhadar Sain Chandolia

1. As the learned counsel for the respondents entered appearance, the Caveat stands discharged. CM APPL. 70431/2024 (Exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16650/2024 & CM APPL. 70432/2024

3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2479/2022, tiled Bhadar Sain Chandolia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the said O.A. filed by the respondents herein was allowed, and the Order dated 16.05.2017, whereby the petitioners had rejected the representations of the respondents for grant of the 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, was quashed.

4. Briefly stated, the respondents were appointed to the post of Compositor Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 (5th CPC) in the 1980s. They were re-appointed on various dates by way of absorption on a transfer basis, to the post of Key Board Operator (which was later re-designated as D.T.P. Operator) in the pay Scale of Rs.4500-7000 (5th CPC), and their pay was accordingly fixed under FR 22(C), a provision relating to pay fixation in case of promotion.

5. The respondents filed a petition before the learned Tribunal, being O.A. No.16/2010, seeking addition for their past service rendered as Compositor Grade-II as service rendered by them at the post of Key Board Operator. The said O.A. was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its Order dated 02.02.2011.

6. In spite of the above, the respondents were granted the First and the Second MACP by treating their appointment with effect from the 1990s, that is, from the date of their re-appointed by way of absorption on a transfer basis to the post of Key Board Operator. They submitted representations for treating their appointment from the date when they were initially appointed to the post of Compositor Grade-II for grant of the benefit of the 3rd MACP. The matter was referred by the petitioners to the DoPT, whereafter the claim was rejected. Aggrieved of the same, the respondents filed the above O.A.

7. The learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, has observed that the case of the respondents is covered by an earlier decision passed in O.A. No.4008/2012, titled I.D. Sharma v. Union of India, where a similar benefit has been granted.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order of the learned Tribunal was distinguishable and was related to the facts of that particular case alone, and that it had been duly considered by the petitioners while rejecting the representations of the respondents.

9. We are not impressed with the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. Admittedly, the respondents though were initially appointed to the post of Compositor Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590, they were later re-appointed, by way of absorption on a transfer basis, to the post of Key Board Operator, and their past service was also to be counted in terms of the Order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal. The past service would, therefore have to be awarded even for the grant of the MACP benefit. Apart from stating that the order of the learned Tribunal in I.D. Sharma (supra) is not applicable to the present case, the respondent is unable to give any reason for not applying the same.

11. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.

12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of as being infructuous.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J MAY 8, 2025/Arya/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any