The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by railway officials challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting financial upgradation to junior employees under the MACP Scheme, holding that the decision upheld Article 14 principles.
Writ petitions dismissed confirming C.A.T. orders; connected MPs dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 3-4-2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
WRIT PETITION Nos.1078, 10046 to 10049 and 18262 of 2012 and
M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2012 1.The Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Represented by its Secretary Department of Personnel and Training North Block, New Delhi. 2.The Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer Southern Railway Headquarters Park Town, Chennai. .. Petitioners in WP 1078/2012 3.The Union of India Represented by the Secretary Ministry of Railways Railway Board, New Delhi. 4.The General Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai 3. 5.The Financial Adviser & Chief Administrative Officer Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai 600 003. .. Petitioners in WP 10046, 10047, 10048, 10049 and 18262/2012 vs 1.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104. .. 1st Respondent in WP 1078, 10046, 10047, 10048, 10049 and 18262/2012
2.N.Subramanian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.V.Rangarajan 4.V.Palanichamy 5.S.Mahalingam
6.I.Francis Joseph 7.R.Prakash 8.Grace Nelson 9.C.Selvin Jeyapandi 10.R.Kannian 11.P.Valarmathi 12.A.Anandaraj 13.M.Balasundaram 14.V.Kumaravelu 15.D.Raju 16.R.Ganesah 17.M.Sethuandiappan 18.K.Sridhar 19.K.Jothivel 20.D.Arulvani 21.B.Raghavan 22.K.C.K.Sampathkumar 23.Mumtaz Mohamed Nazim 24.S.Raman 25.Jebakumari Gunasekaran 26.R.Sridhar 27.P.Balakannan 28.S.Ganesan 29.Mariaa Seelan .. Respondents 2 to 29 in WP 1078/2012 R.Elankovan .. 2nd Respondent in WP 10046/2012 Esther Chelladurai K.Poongothai Umadevi Elangovan S.Amal Raj L.Lalitha R.Selvarani J.Revathi Rose Mary Miranda V.Sekar A.Viswanathan K.Venkatramani P.Subramanian .. Respondents 2 to 13 in WP 10047/2012 R.Venkataramanan M.K.Loganathan Alphonse Michael Lalitha Sundar Jeshintha Joseph J.Nagarajan Nalini Padmanabhan R.Rangarajan P.Jayanthi R.Bhaskaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Shyamala Mahadevan .. Respondents 2 to 12 in WP 10048/2012
G.Sivakumar G.Balaji V.Kannan K.V.Krishnan S.R.Gopinath P.Ramanathan J.Mary Mallika S.Radhakrishnan S.Shanthi R.Kalyanasundaram P.Malathimani T.G.Thayalan .. Respondents 2 to 13 in WP 10049/2012 R.K.V.Ravindran R.Sridhar Mohanraj Ebenezar N.K.Joseph Gnanaolivoo V.Gunasekaran R.Mohankumar V.Padmanabhan P.Murali K.Vijayalakshmi V.S.Muralidhar Hemalatha Unnikrishnan J.Umesh Ravi Devaram .. Respondents 2 to 13 in WP 18262/2012
Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records of the first respondent in O.A.No.1075, 993, 1009, 1008, 1007 and 1063 of 2010 including the orders dated 5.8.2011, 7.10.2011 and 21.11.2011, respectively and quashing the same. For Petitioners in all WPs. : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : R1 – Tribunal Mr.V.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mrs.S.Kala for RR2 to 29 in WP 1078/12, for R2 in WP 10046/12, for RR3, 4 and 6 to 13 in WP 10047/12, for RR2 to 10 and 12 in WP 10048/12, for RR3 to 5 and 7 to 13 in WP 10049/12 and for RR2 to 13 in WP 18262/12
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.)
The official respondents in O.A.Nos.1075, 993, 1009, 1008, 1007 and 1063 of 2010 respectively, had filed these writ petitions challenging the final orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in the above said Original Applications.
2.O.A.Nos.1063 and 1075 of 2010 were filed by the respective private respondents in W.P.Nos.1078 and 18262/2012 seeking to declare Clause 10 and para 20 of Annexure I of Office Memorandum No.35034/3/2008 – Estt (D) dated 19.5.2009, as ultra vires and to quash the order dated 17.6.2010, passed by the Railway Board Service, New Delhi, with a consequential prayer for re-fixation of the pay by granting financial upgradation on the basis of length of service in the post of SO/Sr.SSO/Sr.ISA with consequential benefits. O.A.Nos.993, 1007, 1008 and 1009 of 2010 were filed by the respective private respondents in W.P.Nos.10046 to 10049/2012 seeking to quash the Office Memorandum dated 5.11.2009, issued by the third respondent/third petitioner herein viz. The Financial Adviser and Chief Administrative Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, and to direct the respondents therein to extend the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/with effect from the date, on which, their juniors were upgraded or with effect from 1.1.2006, with reference to their date of entry in the post of Senior Section Officers on the principle placing the Section Officers in the next higher grade carrying Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in pay band PB-2 of Rs.9300-34800 that corresponds to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11500, which places the posts of Section Officer and Assistant Accounts/Audit Officer in an identical pay scale, thus necessitating the upgradation of the latter category which were merged in the pay band PB-2 of Rs.9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.5400/-, whichever is earlier.
3.The facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions, are as follows:
3(i) The original applicants in the above said Original Applications, who are arrayed as private respondents in these writ petitions respectively, had joined in the cadre of Accounts Clerks/Clerks Grade II and got three promotions to the cadre of Junior Accounts Assistants and Accounts Assistants and at the time of filing the Original Applications, were working as Senior Section Officers (Accounts)/Senior Inspector of Stores Accounts and were placed in the Pay Band II – Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- as per V Central Pay Commission Recommendations. The private respondents had availed three promotions and therefore, they were not considered for financial upgradation under Modified Assured Carrier Progression (MACP) Scheme.
3(ii) The private respondents expressed views that persons, who were appointed as Junior Accounts Officer (Direct Recruits) and working as Senior Section Officer (Accounts), Senior Inspector of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Stores Accounts and Senior Travelling Inspector of Accounts, and who were juniors to them, were considered for financial upgradation and they have been granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and challenging the
correctness of Clauses 10 and 11 and Paras 8 and 20 of Annexure I of MACP Scheme, O.A.No.519/2010 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, and the Tribunal vide final order dated 26.4.2010, directed the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the representations and in compliance of the order, the Railway Board had considered the claim made by the private respondents/original applicants, and rejected the same and therefore, they filed the above said Original Applications.
3(iii) The official respondents in their reply statement, took a stand that MACP Scheme came to be formulated as a "safety net" to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by employees due to lack of adequate promotion and was introduced based on the recommendations made by the VI Central Pay Commission, and was also accepted by the Government of India.
3(iv) MACP Scheme envisages financial upgradation counted with reference to the direct entry grade of employees on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service and the original applicants, who had joined the service in the cadre of Accounts Clerks/Clerk Grade II, had earned three promotions and were placed in the Pay Band II of Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- as per VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations.
3(v) Insofar as the stand taken by the original applicants/private respondents herein that their juniors were considered for third upgradation and granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/as against the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- given to them, it is the stand of the official respondents that the MACP Scheme contemplates merely placement on personal basis in the immediate higher Grade Pay/grant of financial benefits only and shall not amount to actual/functional promotion to the employee concerned and it is purely personal to the concerned employee and shall have no relevance to the seniority position and therefore, it is not open to the original applicants to make a complaint in that regard.
3(vi) The sum and substance of the stand taken by the official respondents, is that the original applicants had earned three promotions, whereas the persons, who have been conferred with a Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, got stagnated and the conferment of such benefits is purely personal to them and has no relevance to the seniority position and hence stepping up of pay in the Pay Band or Grade Pay would be inadmissible to them.
3(vii) The Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the said issue and by placing reliance upon its earlier orders dated 29.12.20010, made in O.A.Nos.966 and 967/2009 respectively, found that the applicants in the above said original applications/private respondents herein, are similarly placed like that of the applicants in O.A.Nos.966 and 967/2009. The Tribunal also found that one T.V.Krishnan, Assistant Accountant, has been granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 2.2.2010, by virtue of MACP Scheme and he is in the feeder category of Assistant Accountant, whereas the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ original applicants are in the promotional category of Section Officer, Inspector of Stores Accounts and Senior Section Officers and therefore, they are entitled to financial upgradation by fixing Grade
Pay of Rs.5400/-. The Tribunal citing the said reasons, had allowed the original applications directing the official respondents/petitioners herein to grant revised pay to the applicants by extending the benefit of MACP Scheme in their favour by fixing their Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- from the date, on which, the said benefit was extended to their juniors and to disburse the accrued arrears if any, to the applicants within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the respective order and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed.
4.Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/official respondents, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Note dated 11.11.2013, written by the Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment (D), Government of India, wherein, the anomaly faced by the incumbents of the Accounts Department of Ministry of Railways, consequent to implementation of the MACP Scheme, was considered and it was opined that the instant anomaly brought forward by the referring Department (Ministry of Railways) cannot be attributed to the ACP/MACP policy, but due to faulty cadre structure and therefore, the referring Department may be advised to restructure the Accounts cadre to rectify the anomaly, and would contend that appropriate steps will be taken in that regard.
5.The fact remains that consequent to the implementation of the MACP Scheme, senior employees, who got promotion, are deprived of third MACP, whereas their juniors are availing the benefit of the same by getting Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, but their seniors are getting Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- only. The Tribunal in the impugned orders passed in the Original Applications, has referred to its earlier orders passed in O.A.Nos.966 and 967 of 2009, and following the same, has allowed the Original Applications.
6.The official respondents in the said Original Applications, aggrieved by the orders passed in O.A.Nos.966 and 967/2009, filed W.P.Nos.18611 and 18612 of 2011 and the Division Bench of this Court (N.P.V.,J. & M.S.N.,J.) has considered the issue in extenso and by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in (1989) 2 SCC 290 (STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. G.SREENIVASA RAO), held as follows:
"11. The appellants herein, under the guise of MACP scheme dated 19.05.2009 coupled with the clarification dated 09.11.2009, seeks to deprive the benefit of FR-22(1)(a)(i) to the private respondents and in the considered opinion of the Court, it is unsustainable as it violates equality and it also offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the MACP scheme dated 19.05.2009 as well as the impugned order dated 03.08.2009 do not spell out any reason the applicability of FR-22(1) (a)(i), has excluded for the persons like private respondents who are ultimately aggrieved/affected.
pay anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation of such promotion in the revised scale. (emphasis supplied)
7.The point involved in these writ petitions, is similar to one raised in W.P.Nos.18611 and 18612/2011 filed by the Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, (Department of Personnel & Training), North Block, New Delhi, and two others, wherein, this Court has upheld the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.966 and 967/2009, and dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the official respondents therein. The Tribunal has also placed reliance upon its earlier orders passed in the above said Original Applications, and granted the relief.
8.In the light of the reasons assigned above, this Court finds that there are no merits in these writ petitions.
9.In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed confirming the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1075, 993, 1009, 1008, 1007 and 1063 of 2010, dated 5.8.2011, 7.10.2011 and 21.11.2011. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) dt. 10.04.14
/True Copy/
Sub. Assistant Registrar
nsv
To:
1.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104.
2.The Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Personnel
Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and
Training
North Block, New Delhi.
3.The Financial Adviser and
Chief Accounts Officer
Southern Railway Headquarters
Park Town, Chennai.
4.The Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board, New Delhi.
5.The General Manager
Southern Railway
Park Town, Chennai 3.
6.The Financial Adviser &
Chief Administrative Officer
Southern Railway
Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
W.P.Nos.1078, 10046 to
10049 & 18262 of 2012 and
MP.Nos.1,1,1,1,14 &1 2012
RSK(CO)
EU 10.04.14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether senior promoted employees are entitled to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme when their juniors were granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400 while they remained at Rs.4800.
Whether the denial of MACP benefits to promoted employees violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Andhra Pradesh v. G.Sreeniva RaoRelied on¶6
(1989) 2 SCC 290 (STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. G.SREENIVASA RAO) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Southern Railway
Union of India
General Manager, Southern Railway
Financial Adviser & Chief Administrative Officer, Southern Railway
Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
N.Paul Vasantakumar
M.Sathyanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
