Allowed¶74

The Union of India and Anr. v. Lalkumar Ek and 17 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Oct 2025WA/244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MACPS; ACPS; financial up-gradation; merger of pay scales; merger of posts; Clause 5 O.M. dated 19.05.2009; Grade Pay 2800/4200/4600/4800/5400; Draughtsman Grade-II; Draughtsman Grade-I; GREF; Border Roads Development Board; DGBR; pay fixation; refixation; 5th Central Pay Commission; 6th Central Pay Commission; CCS (RP) Rules; parity; Overseer; diploma holders; Tarani Kanta Sarma 2019 (4) GLT 760; Gauhati High Court; Writ Appeal WA/244/2023; Single Judge judgment dated 06.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 3818/2014 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3818/2014 was set aside. ¶74

The Union of India and Anr. Vs Lalkumar Ek and 17 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3818/2014 was set aside.

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/writ petitioners were entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4600-4800/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 under the MACPS, i.e., whether their earlier promotions/financial up-gradations culminating in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- were liable to be ignored under Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 as up-gradations occasioned by merger of posts. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

With implementation of the MACP Scheme, all promotions earned in the cadre cannot be ignored, for that is not the object and purport of the MACP Scheme.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

Clause 5 permits ignoring past ACP promotions/up-gradations only where they were to grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/up-gradation of posts recommended by the 6th Pay Commission; if not to the same grade pay, they cannot be ignored.

¶68

Key takeaways

The respondents' up-gradation to Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- was not due to merger of posts but because of promotion (in some cases) and in situ promotion by way of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme (in others).ratio¶59
Accordingly, the provisions of the MACPS could not have been made applicable to the respondents for the higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, Rs. 4800/- or Rs. 5400/-.ratio¶59
The respondents' contention that they were entitled to grade pay of Rs. 5000-8000/- as that was the basic pay of persons of similar grade cannot be countenanced, since they remained on the same scale of pay for 12 years before promotion to a higher post with higher Pay Band.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ and Arun Dev Choudhury, J) allowed WA/244/2023 preferred by the Union of India (Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways / Border Roads Development Board and Director General Border Roads) and set aside the judgment dated 06.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3818/2014, whereby 18 GREF Senior Draftsmen (respondents) were held entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4600-4800/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with consequential pay refixation ignoring their promotion to Draughtsman Grade-I and ACP financial up-gradation. Held: the respondents, initially appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- (PB-1, Grade Pay Rs. 2800/-), reached Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- (PB-2) by promotion to Draughtsman Grade-I or by in situ financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme, and not by merger of posts; Clause 5 of the O.M. dated 19.05.2009 mandates ignoring past ACP up-gradations only where the grades concerned now carry the same grade pay owing to merger of pay scales/posts recommended by the 6th Pay Commission; promotions earned in the cadre cannot be ignored under the MACP Scheme, and where the earlier up-gradation was not to the same grade pay it cannot be ignored. MACPS up-gradation to Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/4800/5400 was therefore unavailable to the respondents. The plea of parity with Ramanan R and Vijy Pal Sharma was met with the distinction that those two were initially appointed as Overseers and promoted on acquiring a diploma, whereas the respondents' initial appointment was in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. The claim founded on the pre-revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- was rejected as the respondents served 12 years in the same scale before promotion. Reliance: Tarani Kanta Sarma vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 760.

Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010087472023

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WA/244/2023

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

¶7

REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT and HIGHWAYS, BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BORAD, B WING, 4TH FLOOR, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

¶8

2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RIMNG ROAD DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI-1

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

LALKUMAR EK AND 17 ORS. SENIOR DRAFTSMAN, GS 169927, HQ 47 BRTF GREF, C/O 99 APO

¶11

2:DALBIR SINGH SENIRO DRAFTSMAN GS 157075 L HQ CE P PUSHPAK C/O99APO

¶12

3:MONYLAL KE SENIRO DRAFTSMAN GS 171306 F HQ CE P SWASTIK C/O99APO

¶13

4:BANARASI DAS SNIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171333 L HQ CE P SWASTIK C/O 99 APO

¶14

Page No.# 2/10

¶15

5:JAYANTHAKUMARAN L

¶16

SENIOR DRAFSMAN GS 171661 Y HQ 21 BRTF GREF C/O 56 APO

¶17

6:N VELAPPAN SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 170423 A HQ CE P DEEPAK C/O 56 APO

¶18

7:VINOD KUMAR GAUR SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171725 Y HQ CE P DEEPAK C/O 56 APO

¶19

8:MOHAN NAIR M SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171583 M HQ CEP HIRAK C/O 56 APO

¶20

9:SUKHDEV SINGH SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 1716858 Y HQ DGBR SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RIMNG ROAD DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI-10

¶21

10:KUSHLA NAND SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 157074 H HQ CE P SAMPARK C/O 56APO

¶22

11:TRILOCHAN PRASAD BAHUGUNA SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171338 K HQ CE P SAMPARK C/O 56 APO

¶23

12:PRAKASHAN UN SENIOR DRAFTSMAN

¶24

Page No.# 3/10

¶25

GS 171741 W HQ DGBR SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RIMNG ROAD DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI-10

¶26

13:MANJINDER SINGH SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171724 W HQ CE P VIJAYAK C/O 56 APO

¶27

14:S GOPINATHAN PILLAI SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171774 F HQ CE P ARUNANK C/O 99 APO

¶28

15:RAM KUMAR SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171662 F HQ 1445 BCC GREF C/O 56 APO

¶29

16:GAJENDRA SINGH PAL SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 171817 L HQ CE P BACON C/O 56 APO

¶30

17:MONGA PYARE LAL SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 169934 X HQ 13 BRTF GREF C/O 56 APO

¶31

18:DARSHAN LAL SENIOR DRAFTSMAN GS 158805 X HQ DGBR SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RIMNG ROAD DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI-1

¶32

Page No.# 4/10

¶33

For petitioner/appellant(s): Mr. A. Gupta, CGC

¶34

For respondent(s) : Mr. A. Chakravarty, Advocate

¶35

– BEFORE –

¶36

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶37

16.10.2025

¶38

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶39

We have heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants/Union of India, and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

In this appeal, the judgment dated 06.01.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3818/2014 is under challenge.

¶41

By the impugned judgment, the claim of the respondents of their entitlement for being granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600-4800/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 upon implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MASPS) and for re-fixation of their pay at the appropriate level after grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600-4800/- was allowed. The appellants were directed to fix the pay of the respondents without taking into consideration the promotion given to them to the post of Draughtsman Grade-I and the financial up-gradation granted under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). This exercise of refixation of pay was directed to be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a copy of the judgment was served upon them.

¶42

Page No.# 5/10

¶43

The contention of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge did not take into account the fact that the respondents were initially appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II in the Pay Scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-, corresponding to Pay Band 1 of Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- under the 6^th Central Pay Commission and were further promoted to the promotional post of Draughtsman Grade-I in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-, corresponding to Pay Band 2 of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- as per the 6^th Central Pay Commission.

¶44

It is further contended that according to the recommendation of the 5^th Central Pay Commission, the ACPS was introduced for the Central Government’s civil employees falling under Grade B, C and D posts w.e.f. 19.08.1998 with two financial up-gradation on completion of 12 years/24 years to be counted from the date of direct entry into the government employment, subject to fulfilment of all promotional norms.

¶45

As per the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission, MACPS was introduced to all Central Government civil employees w.e.f. 01.09.2008 mandating three financial up-gradation to be counted from the date of direct entry into the grade on completion of 10/20/30 years of continuous regular service, which scheme was to be admissible whenever a person had completed 10 years of continuous service in the same grade.

¶46

In the case of the respondents/writ petitioners, they had already been granted the first financial up-gradation on completion of 12 years of service in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-, corresponding to Pay Band

¶47

Page No.# 6/10

¶48

2 of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- under the 6^th Central Pay Commission. Some of the respondents were promoted before completion of 12/24 years of their service and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits of the ACP. However, on completion of 20 years of continuous service in the Draughtsman cadre, they were granted the second financial up-gradation in the Pay Band 2 of Rs. 9300-34800/- with

¶49

Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- as per the 6^th Central Pay Commission under the MACPS, which had come into effect from the 1^st September, 2008.

¶50

However, the learned Single Judge, after having perused the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), particularly Clause 5 of the same, it has been argued, erroneously came to the conclusion that the up-gradation of post/financial up-gradation in case of the respondents/writ petitioners had to be ignored because such up-gradation was because of the merger of posts, leaving them with enhanced Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-.

¶51

For a re-appreciation of the contents of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2019, we deem it appropriate to extract Clause 5 of the same in its entirety:

¶52

“ 5. Promotions earned/upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/ungradations of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS.

¶53

The pre-revised hierarchy (in ascending order) in a particular organization was as under:-

¶54

(a) A Government servant who was recruited in the hierarchy in the

¶55

Page No.# 7/10

¶56

pre-revised pay scale Rs.5000-8000 and who did not get a promotion even after 25 years of service prior to 01.01.2006, in his case as on 01.01.2006 he would have got two financial ungradations under ACP to the next grades in the hierarchy of his organization, i.e., to the pre-revised scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500.

¶57

(b) Another Government servant recruited in the same hierarchy in the pre-revised scale of Rs.5000-8000 has also completed about 25 years of service, but he got two promotions to the next higher grades of Rs.5500-9000 & Rs.6500-10500 during this period.

¶58

In the case of both (a) and (b) above, the promotions/financial upgradations granted under ACP to the pre-revised scales of Rs.55009000 and Rs.6500-10500 prior to 01.01.2006 will be ignored on account of merger of the pre-revised scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rd5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 recommended by the Sixth CPC.. As per CCs (RP) Rules, both of them will be granted grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2. After the implementation of MACPS, two financial upgradations will be granted both in the case of (a) and (b) above to the next higher grade pays of Rs.4600 and Rs.4800 in the pay band PB-2.”

¶59

It appears that the fact that the respondents/petitioners were initially appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II in the Pay Scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-, corresponding to Pay Band 1 of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, escaped the notice of the learned Single Judge. In view of the promotion/financial up-gradation already availed of by the respondents/petitioners, which was not due to merger of the posts but because of, in case of some of them, promotion; and in case of others, in situ promotion by way of financial up-gradation under the scheme, the provisions contained in the MACPS could not have been made applicable in case of the respondents/petitioners for the higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-; Rs.4800/- or Rs. 5400/-.

¶60

Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the respondents, however, argued that in case of two of the employees, namely, Ramanan R and

¶61

Page No.# 8/10

¶62

Vijy Pal Sharma, such benefit was accorded to them even though their cases were similar to the case of the respondents.

¶63

The learned counsel for the appellants however controverted such statement by stating that the afore-noted two persons were initially appointed to the post of Overseer and were promoted to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II on their acquiring diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design from a recognised institute. By virtue of such upgradation in their skill, they were placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. Rs. 50008000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. This was also because of the fact that similarly situated non-diploma holders overseers were put in the same grade. It was because of this that they were eligible for the 1^st and 2^nd MACPS of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800/- respectively on completion of 10/20 years of service w.e.f. 01.09.1998. The case of the respondents is different inasmuch as their initial appointment was on the Pay Scale of Rs. 45007000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-. It was not because of merger of posts that they were getting Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, but because of promotion and in case of some others, by way of in situ promotion in the shape of financial up-gradation under the scheme of ACP.

¶64

In Tarani Kanta Sarma vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 760 , a coordinate Bench of this Court has clarified that under the MACP Scheme, there would be three financial up-gradation, counted from the date of direct entry in the grade on completion of 10/20/30 years respectively and such up-gradation will be admissible whenever a person completes 10 years of continuous service in the same grade/pay scale. “Direct entry’ as is referred to in the MACP Scheme, cannot be co-related to any

¶65

Page No.# 9/10

¶66

subsequent revision or classification of posts also indicating that a particular post will be a post in the entry grade.

¶67

With the implementation of the MACP Scheme, all promotion earned in the cadre cannot be ignored, for this is not the object and purport of the MACP Scheme.

¶68

Clause 5, which deals with promotions earned earlier, provides that the promotions earned/up-gradations granted under the ACP scheme in the past to those grades, which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/up-gradations of posts recommended by the 6^th Pay Commission, shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under the MACP Scheme. If it is not to the same grade pay, it cannot be ignored.

¶69

Thus, in the case of the respondents, the same grade pay was made available to them not by virtue of the merger of posts, but on their having been promoted to higher post, and in cases of some of the petitioners, having obtained financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme.

¶70

This up-gradation could not have been ignored under the MACP Scheme.

¶71

It is also the contention of Mr. Chakraborty that, in fact, the respondents were entitled to grade pay of Rs. 5000-8000/- as that was the basic pay available to persons of similar grade, but then this argument cannot be countenanced for the reason that the respondents remained on the same scale of pay for 12 years before they were promoted to higher post with higher Pay Band.

¶72

Page No.# 10/10

¶73

For the afore-noted reasons, we do not find ourselves persuaded to sustain the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.

¶74

Perforce, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal.

¶75

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶76

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and Anr. v. Lalkumar Ek and 17 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and Anr. v. Lalkumar Ek and 17 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Badri Rai and Company Vs Indian Institute of Technology

Shri Udit Gupta Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

M/S Badri Rai and Co. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Arif MD Yeamin Chowdhury and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Abdus Salam Mazarbhuiya and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Lakheswar Mazumdar, Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.