Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.

1. These petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. 3578/2015, titled Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondents herein in terms of the Order dated 10.01.2020, passed by the learned Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, in O.A. No. 292/2013, titled Bharat Kumar Pant & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., and as upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan by the Judgment dated 20.10.2022 in W.P.(C) 3847/2021.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

2. The petitioners also challenge the Order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in R.A. No. 80/2024 in the above O.A., by which the review filed by the petitioners herein against the order dated 07.11.2022 has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

3. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petitions arise, the respondents were initially appointed, sometime in 1987, as Electrical Master Craftsmen (MCM) (Skilled) in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (GP Rs.1900/-).

4. The Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) was introduced by the Government of India on 09.08.1999, providing for two financial upgradations, on completion of 12 and 24 years of service.

5. The respondent was then granted the first ACP benefit, by placing him as Electrical (MV) (Skilled) in the year 1999, having a pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (GP Rs. 2400/-).

6. The respondent was later promoted to the post of Electrical (AFV) (Highly Skilled) on 25.09.1999, having the same pay scale, that is, Rs. 4000-6000 (GP Rs. 2400/-). This was not treated as a promotion.

7. The respondent, on 01.10.2003, was placed as MCM in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 (GP Rs. 4200/-). This was treated as one promotion, however, on 18.02.2006, the post of Electrical (AFV)

(MCM) was merged into Electrical MCM without any change in pay, that is, with the same pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 (GP Rs. 4200/-). Due to such merger, the effect of the promotion was, therefore, negated, however, the petitioner continued to treat the elevation of the respondent to the post of MCM as a promotion. On the said basis, the petitioner granted the respondent the ‘third MACP’ on 01.10.2013 by way of a 3% increment of pay within the grade pay of Rs. 4200/-.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cases of the other respondents are almost identical and, therefore, specific reference to the dates of their promotions and appointments need not be specifically mentioned; the only issue to be determined being the effect of the merger of the post of Electrical (AFV) (MCM) into Electrical MCM without any change in pay

9. The respondents filed the above O.A. claiming Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- as the third financial upgradation under the MACP scheme, as far as respondent nos. 1 to 54 are concerned, and the second financial upgradation as far as the respondent nos. 55 and 56 are concerned.

10. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. and thereafter, also dismissed the Review Application filed by the petitioner.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the promotion to the post of MCM in October 2003 was the second promotion for the respondent, while the third MACP benefit was granted to the respondent while placing him in the post of Electrical (MCM) on 01.10.2013 with pay of Rs. 13,820/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-.

12. We are unable to accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

13. With the merger of the post of Electrical (AFV) (MCM) with MCM on 18.02.2006, the effect of the so-called promotion disappears. This has also been clarified by the Government of India vide OM No.