Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.11.2025
74404/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, SPC
Through: Nemo.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal') in O.A No. 2676/2016, titled Daya Ram v. Union of India & Ors., allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent had been promoted to the post of Motor Pump Attendant on 19.12.1975. He further submits that, due to inadvertence, the effect of Circular No. SRO 215/1971 was not taken into consideration, and the appointment of the respondent was inadvertently treated as a case of direct recruitment. He submits that, thereafter, the benefits of the ACP Scheme were granted to the respondent by treating his appointment as direct recruitment instead of promotion. He further submits that the said anomaly was observed only in 2011, with a Clarification dated 22.07.2011 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch, clarifying that the post of Motor Pump Attendant is a promotional post. Accordingly, the claim of the respondent for revision of his pay by the granting of third MACP benefits was rejected.
4. We do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. As noted by the learned Tribunal, the respondent had earlier filed O.A. No. 1884/2010. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide Order dated 01.10.2010, in light of its earlier Order dated 16.09.2010 in O.A. No. 1383/2010, titled Jai Raj v. Union of India and Ors., thereby directing the petitioners to recalculate the relief due to the respondent.
6. The learned Tribunal further noted that the decision in Jai Raj (supra) was subsequently affirmed by this Court vide Order dated 27.08.2013 in W.P.(C) 2974/2012, whereby the petition challenging the Order in O.A. No. 1884/2010 was dismissed.
7. The learned Tribunal further noted that the respondent was drawing the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 (pre-revised) under the ACP Scheme on 31.12.2005. He was, therefore, entitled for the grant of the MACP benefits in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600.
8. We do not find any infirmity in the above observation of the learned Tribunal. The respondent has been, as per the petitioners’ own showing, considered as a direct recruit since 1975 and has been accordingly granted benefits under the ACP Scheme. The petitioners cannot be allowed to change the same at such a belated stage.
9. In the peculiar facts of the case, we do not find this to be fit to interfere with the Impugned Order in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The Writ Petition, along with the pending applications is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025/prg/RM/Yg