Devendra Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):

Heard Shri S.K. Pandey, assisted by Shri Nandlal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Navin Chandra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.

The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:

The brief facts as apparent from the record of Original Application are that the applicants initially appointed and joined as Trains Clerk and were subsequently appointed as Assistant Yard Master, Assistant Station Master after qualifying General Departmental Competition Examination (hereinafter referred as GDCE) and their details of joining as Assistant Yard Master, Assistant Station Master is as under:-

On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 26.05.2014, wherein it has been stated that earlier the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No.796/2011 with the identical relief such as for a direction upon the respondents to stop the further upgradation in 2^nd and 3^rd MACP and add the name of the applicants as per their seniority list so that the justification of their right may be provided to the applicants and arrears may be paid to them w.e.f. f01.09.2008. The said OA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2013 and as such, said original application is barred by res judicata.

In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 18.09.2015, wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original Application. However, it is stated that the respondents have granted the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- to several employees, who joined as Station Superintendent, Deputy Station Superintendent, Chief Yard Master, Deputy Chief Yard Master. Initially the similarly situated employees were also selected in the Railways in 1970-86 and thereafter, selected to GDCE on the above posts. Therefore, the respondents adopted pick and choose method. The juniors to the applicant have been granted the benefits of MACP, but they were denied the same.

The applicants also filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit on 04.09.2025, wherein it has been stated that as per Railway Board have stated in Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-1 Revise Edition -1989 Advance Correction Slip No.237, (i) by which it is being affirmed that the selection of Guards shall be made 60 % through GDCE amongst serving regular employees with a minimum of 3 years service, (ii) 15 % by LDCE plus short fall if any amongst (i) above from amongst service regular non-ministerial employees in operating and commercial Departmental with a minimum 3 years regular with educational qualification of Graduation, (iii) 25 % by direct recruitment through RRB with graduate qualification (iv) short fall in general selection as per (i) above to be added to LDCE and shortfall in LDCE will be transferred to GDCE Quota open for all Departmental. As such, it is affirmed that the selection of Guards are made through selection of regular employees filling up of vacancies in a grade by direct recruitment through GDCE and LDCE. Therefore, 60 % of the selection of the Guard are made through GDCE and their services are filled up along with 25 % direct recruitment in such cases, past service rendered in lower pay scale/grade pay shall not be counted for the purpose of MACP Scheme as per RBE No.100/2012.

The applicants also filed an objection affidavit, wherein it has been stated that, in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal merely referred to the details of their previous service in relation to promotion/ACP/MACP. However, the Tribunal wrongly considered the Grade Pay of ₹4,200 (RPS) applicable to the posts of Assistant Yard Master and Assistant Station Master at the time of joining. Consequently, the applicants have been granted only the first MACP in the Grade Pay of ₹4,600, whereas they have not been granted the subsequent MACP benefits to which they claim to be entitled. It is further contended that this Tribunal failed to take into consideration the rules and policies framed by the Railways. Therefore, the order passed by this Tribunal is null and void. It is further submitted that this Tribunal has overridden the policy framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), and has illegally taken into account the ACP/MACP benefits earned by the applicants during their previous service, which, according to them, is impermissible. On this basis, the applicants contend that the impugned order is null and void. Where a statute confers powers upon an Administrative Tribunal subject to an express or implied obligation to afford a hearing, compliance with the principles of natural justice is mandatory. Beyond doubt, an order that infringes a fundamental freedom and is passed in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem is a nullity.

A Misc. Application No.5291/2026 has also been filed by the applicants on 05.10.2026 (at the time of hearing) for amending the prayer such summoning the service records of the applicants, original appointment orders of the applicant, promotion orders/ACP and seniority list. Since the said amendment application has been filed at the time of final hearing of the case, same is not accepted.

Shri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the applicants’ appointment to the posts of Assistant Yard Master/Assistant Station Master through GDCE in 1983 and, in the case of Applicant No. 6, in 1981, ought to be treated as direct recruitment for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. In this regard, he placed reliance upon Railway Board Establishment Letter (RBE) No. 100/2012 dated 12.09.2012, which provides that where the relevant recruitment rules prescribe direct recruitment to a grade, induction of an employee into that grade through LDCE/GDCE may be treated as direct recruitment for the purpose of MACP, and the past service rendered in a lower pay scale/Grade Pay shall not be counted. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the applicants’ past service rendered prior to their selection through GDCE could not have been taken into account while determining their entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted the present Original Application is barred by the principle of res-judicata, as the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 796/2011 seeking similar relief in respect of the grant of the second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. The said Original Application was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2012. It was, therefore, contended that the applicants could not reagitate the same claim by way of the present Original Application.

We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

At the outset, it is pertinent to examine the objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the present Original Application on the ground of res-judicata. The applicants have filed the present Original Application seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them the second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme in accordance with their length of service and the applicable Railway Board instructions.

It is evident from the record that the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 796/2011, wherein the following relief was sought:

The aforesaid Original Application was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2012, wherein the Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the parties and the relevant documents, made the following observations:-

A perusal of the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 796/2011 reveals that the issue concerning the applicants’ entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme had been specifically considered and adjudicated upon. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and examining the relevant documents and service particulars of the applicants, specifically held that the applicants had initially been inducted into service in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 and had subsequently been promoted to the pay scales of Rs. 330-560 and Rs. 425-700. On the basis of their aforesaid service progression, the Tribunal categorically observed that the applicants had already availed three promotions. It was further held that, since the MACP Scheme provides for financial upgradation in lieu of promotion, the applicants were not eligible for any further financial upgradation under the said Scheme. On the basis of these findings, the earlier Original Application was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2012.

In the present proceedings, the applicants have again raised the issue of their entitlement to the second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme, while relying upon additional grounds relating to the merger of pay scales, the applicability of Railway Board letter RBE No. 100/2012 dated 12.09.2012 and the alleged grant of similar benefits to other employees. However, the fact remains that the foundational issue concerning their eligibility for financial upgradation, in the light of their initial appointment and subsequent promotions, had already been examined and decided by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. The applicants cannot be permitted to reopen the said issue merely by advancing additional grounds or placing further documents on record. If they were aggrieved by the findings recorded in the earlier order, the appropriate course available to them was to challenge the same before the competent forum in accordance with law. This Tribunal, while adjudicating the present Original Application, cannot sit in appeal over the decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench or indirectly review the correctness of the findings recorded therein through fresh proceedings.

The contention of the applicants that the relief sought in the present Original Application is different from that claimed in the earlier proceedings does not, by itself, render the principle of res-judicata inapplicable. The said principle is founded upon the necessity of bringing finality to litigation and preventing the same parties from repeatedly agitating an issue that has already been finally adjudicated by a competent forum. In the present case, the earlier order specifically dealt with the applicants’ service progression, the promotions already availed by them and the consequent question of their eligibility for further financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Therefore, merely by referring to additional grounds or subsequent interpretations in support of their claim, the applicants cannot seek reconsideration of the issue already decided, subject, of course, to any legally sustainable ground demonstrating that the present claim is distinct or that the earlier adjudication does not operate as a bar.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the applicants for further financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 796/2011, wherein it was specifically held that the applicants had already availed three promotions and were, therefore, not eligible for any further financial upgradation under the Scheme. The applicants have failed to demonstrate any sufficient basis for re-opening the issue in the present proceedings. Accordingly, subject to the applicability of the principle of res judicata to the claim raised herein, the present Original Application is held to be barred by the said principle.

In view of the fact that the applicants concealed the material fact regarding the filing of an earlier Original Application for same relief, the instant Original Application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the instant O.A. stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), to be deposited by the applicants with the CAT Bar Association, Allahabad, within a period of two months from the date of this order.

The Registry is directed to place a report before the Court, upon expiry of the aforesaid period of two months, indicating whether the costs have been deposited by the applicants. In the event of non-deposit of the costs within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the applicants as arrears of land revenue through the District Magistrate/Collector of the concerned district.

All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.

No order as to costs.