AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
In the instant OA, the applicants are seeking the following relief:
“a. To call for the records pertain to the grant of non-functional scale of GPRs.4200/- to the Pharmacist in GP Rs.2800/- and the records pertain to the grant of MACP Scheme in railways from the Respondents and also the recommendation Fast track committee and decision made by the Respondents.
b. To declare that the placement in non-functional scale of GP Rs.4200/- shall not be counted as promotion or financial upgradation to grant of 3rd MACP in GP Rs.5400/- in the line of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2941-2942 of 2014 and also as per the judgement of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.110551/2017(S-CAT).
c. To issue a direction to the official Respondents to financial 3rd upgradation to the applicants in GP Rs.5400/- from the date of completion of 30 years of service from the date entry into the GP Rs.2800/-with all consequential benefits and
d. Any other orders by this Hon'ble Tribunal as deem fit to render justice.”
Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants are as follows: The applicants are working in the cadre of Pharmacists. The Pharmacist cadre was restructured from five grades into two grades, carrying Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 2,800/- and Rs. 4,600/-, respectively. A non-functional grade is granted to all Pharmacists in GP Rs. 2,800/- upon completion of the prescribed probationary period of two years. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) upgradation to GP Rs. 5,400/- upon completion of 30 years of service, after taking into account their first regular promotion to GP Rs. 4,600/- and the 2nd MACP upgradation to GP Rs. 4,800/- upon completion of 20 years of service. However, the Railway Administration has denied the applicants the benefit of 3rd MACP in GP Rs. 5,400/- by erroneously treating the non-functional placement in GP Rs. 4,200/- as the first promotion, the subsequent promotion to GP Rs. 4,600/- as the second promotion, and the MACP granted in GP Rs. 4,800/- as the third financial upgradation. Such an interpretation is incorrect and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2941-2942 of 2014, as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 110551 of 2017 (S-CAT) and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P. (CAT) Nos. 4400 of 2012 and 919 of 2013. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that all the applicants had completed 30 years of qualifying service before their retirement and were, therefore, eligible for 3rd MACP upgradation to GP Rs. 5,400/- in terms of paragraph 2 of the Railway Board's Order No. PC-V/2009/ACP/2 dated 10.06.2009 (RBE No. 101/2009). The said position was further clarified vide paragraph (b) of Southern Railway's Order No. P(R)535/P/MACPS/Vol. III dated 20.05.2013, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A-4. The applicants also rely upon the clarification issued by the Railway Board vide Order No. PC-VI/2009/I/RSRP/10 dated 30.03.2010 (RBE No. 47/2010), produced as Annexure A-1, read with the further clarification issued vide Order No. PC-VI/2009/I/RSRP/10 dated 05.08.2010 (RBE No. 109/2010), produced as Annexure A-5.
The learned counsel further submitted that Annexure A-9 is the order passed by the Bengaluru Bench of this Tribunal in a similar matter, wherein the issue was adjudicated and it was held that employees belonging to the Pharmacist cadre, similarly situated as the applicants herein, are entitled to 3rd MACP in GP Rs. 5,400/-. It was held that the placement from GP Rs. 2,800/- to GP Rs. 4,200/- was only an absorption into the regular post carrying GP Rs. 4,200/- after completion of the probationary period in GP Rs. 2,800/-. This was because GP Rs. 2,800/- did not constitute an organized grade with sanctioned posts in the Pharmacist cadre, the posts being distributed in accordance with the prescribed percentage applicable to the Pharmacist category. Accordingly, the issue regarding entitlement to GP Rs. 5,400/- as 3rd MACP upon completion of 30 years of service, treating GP Rs. 2,800/- as the entry grade of the Pharmacist cadre and recognizing that the period spent in GP Rs. 2,800/- was only the probationary period preceding regular absorption into the cadre, had already been adjudicated and settled. The order of the Bengaluru Bench, attained finality and was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court.
It is also pointed out by him that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) Dy. No. 28649/2018, which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequent upon the dismissal of the said SLP and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Respondent Railway issued Memorandum, dated 19.01.2018, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-8. Thereafter, the Respondent Railway also filed a compliance report before the Bengaluru Bench of this Tribunal on 22.01.2018, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-9.
In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the progression applicable to the Pharmacist cadre is that the 1st promotion/MACP is to GP Rs. 4,600/- upon completion of 10 years of service, the 2nd MACP is to GP Rs. 4,800/- upon completion of 20 years of service, and the 3rd MACP is to GP Rs. 5,400/- upon completion of 30 years of service, reckoned from the entry grade of GP Rs. 2,800/-. The non-functional placement in GP Rs. 4,200/- cannot be treated as a promotion or financial upgradation for the purpose of determining entitlement under the MACP Scheme.
The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already settled the question of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 2941-2942 of 2014, namely, whether the grant of a non-functional grade can be treated as a promotion or financial upgradation for the purpose of the MACP Scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a placement in a non-functional grade, granted uniformly to all employees pursuant to a single decision, does not amount to either a promotion or a financial upgradation. Consequently, placement in a non-functional scale cannot be counted as a promotion or financial upgradation for the purpose of determining the number of financial upgradations admissible under the MACP Scheme. Therefore, the Railway Administration's decision to treat the non-functional placement in GP Rs. 4,200/- as the first promotion, the subsequent promotion to GP Rs. 4,600/- as the second promotion, and the grant of GP Rs. 4,800/- under the MACP Scheme as the third financial upgradation is contrary to the settled legal position and the binding judgments referred to above. The applicants are consequently entitled to the benefit of 3rd MACP upgradation to GP Rs. 5,400/- upon completion of 30 years of service, subject to the other applicable conditions of the MACP Scheme.
He relied on the following judicial decisions in support of his contentions and prayed for the relief sought in the present OA:
Judgment dated 17.5.2024 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CMAA No.5 of 2024.
Judgment dated 22.7.2025 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 10475/2025 in O.A. No.1361 of 2015 of CAT, Principal Bench
Judgment dated 09.9.2024 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 690/2022
Order dated 15.5.2025 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2802/2021
In contrast, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the applicants and relied upon the averments and grounds contained in the reply statement. He submitted that the MACP Scheme specifically provides that existing time-bound promotion schemes, including in-situ promotion schemes or any other promotion schemes applicable to a particular category of employees in a Ministry, Department or its offices, may continue to operate only if the competent administrative authority decides to retain such schemes after due consultation. However, such schemes cannot operate concurrently with the MACP Scheme.
The learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid stipulation is significant, as it makes it clear that an employee cannot claim the benefit of both a time-bound/in-situ promotion scheme and the MACP Scheme for the same period of service. According to him, the underlying rationale is that the MACP Scheme itself provides for three financial upgradations at prescribed intervals of ten years of service, in accordance with the Pay Band and Grade Pay specified in Section I, Part A of the First Schedule. Therefore, once an employee has already received the benefit of a time-bound promotion, in-situ promotion, or any other financial advancement resulting in placement in a higher Grade Pay, such advancement necessarily has to be taken into account while determining the employee's entitlement to subsequent financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.
The learned counsel further drew the attention of the Tribunal to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 8515/2014, decided on 09.11.2016 in Union of India & Ors. v. AICGHS Association & Ors., wherein, according to him, an identical issue concerning the treatment of the financial upgradation granted to Pharmacists was considered in detail. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition in favour of the Government and made the following observations:
"The Pharmacists (Entry Grade) were/are entitled to financial upgradation after two years. Paragraph 1 does not state or stipulate that the financial upgradation has to be ignored and not taken into account for the purpose of MACP scheme. If a Pharmacist (Entry Grade) has remained at the said post for ten years in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200, he would be entitled to benefit of financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.4800. The argument would not lead us to conclusion that the financial upgradation of Pharmacist (Entry Grade) at the first stage after two years of service in grade pay of Rs.2800 to Rs.4200 would be clubbed and accordingly, the first financial upgradation would be to grade pay of Rs.4600 and then to Grade Pay of Rs.4800. The argument of the respondent, in fact, ignores the first financial upgradation from GP Rs.2800 to GP Rs.4200 and is, therefore not acceptable" (Annexure R-4)."
The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid judgment was subsequently challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2969/2019. He pointed out that, by order dated 13.12.2022 passed in I.A. No. 17255/2022 in Civil Appeal No. 2969/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain the application and observed as follows:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we see no reason to entertain the instant application in the appeal of the present nature. However, if the appellants have any other remedy in accordance with law, they may avail the same and all questions are left open in that regard to be urged in such proceedings, if any. The application is disposed of accordingly." It is pointed out by him that the Railway Board, in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), had specifically clarified, vide its letter dated 20.04.2011, that the placement of Pharmacists in GP Rs. 4,200/- in PB-2, upon completion of two years of regular service in GP Rs. 2,800/- in PB-1, is required to be counted and treated as one financial upgradation for the purpose of the MACP Scheme.
According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid clarification establishes that the placement from GP Rs. 2,800/- to GP Rs. 4,200/- after completion of two years of regular service constitutes a financial upgradation and, therefore, must be reckoned while determining the applicant's entitlement to subsequent financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. Consequently, the applicants cannot disregard the said placement and claim the same as an independent or neutral placement for the purpose of securing an additional financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. N.M. Raut & Others, reported in 2024 INSC 1042, in support of the respondents' contention regarding the manner in which financial upgradations are to be reckoned under the MACP Scheme.
On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicants have already received the benefit of financial upgradations arising from their placement/promotion in the higher Grade Pays and, therefore, are not entitled to claim a further financial upgradation by excluding the placement in GP Rs. 4,200/- from consideration. He accordingly submitted that the claim of the applicants for 3rd MACP in GP Rs. 5,400/- is devoid of merit and prayed that the Original Application be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side at length, perused the pleadings and the materials available on record. The case laws referred to by the respective parties were also perused by us.
Upon considering the rival contentions, the specific issue for adjudication in the Original Application is “Whether the placement of Pharmacists from Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/- to Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- upon completion of two years of regular service constitutes a financial upgradation for the purpose of the MACP Scheme and, consequently, whether the same is liable to be counted while determining their entitlement to subsequent MACP benefits.”
For proper understanding, it is appropriate for us to extract the relevant portion of clauses of the MACPS hereunder:
1.There shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service respectively. Financial upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade-pay.
2.The MACPS envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part-A of the first schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Thus, the grade pay at the time of financial upgradation under the MACPS can, in certain cases where regular promotion is not between two successive grades, be different than what is available at the time of regular promotion. In such cases, the higher grade pay attached to the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the concerned cadre/organisation will be given only at the time of regular promotion.
5.Promotions earned/upgradation granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS.
13.Existing time-bound promotion scheme, including in-situ promotion scheme, Staff Car Driver Scheme or any other kind of promotion scheme existing for a particular category of employees in a Ministry/Department or its offices, may continue to be operational for the concerned category of employees if it is decided by the concerned administrative authorities to retain such Schemes, after necessary consultations or they may switch-over to the MACPS. However, these Schemes shall not run concurrently with the MACPS.
19.The MACPS 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 of the employees concerned. Therefore, no reservation orders/roster shall apply to the MACPS, which shall extend its benefits uniformly to all eligible SC/ST employees also. However, the rules of reservation in promotion shall be ensured at the time of regular promotion. For this reason, it shall not be mandatory to associate members of SC/ST in the Screening Committee meant to consider cases for grant of financial upgradation under the Scheme.
20.Financial upgradation under the MACPS shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay/grade pay under the MACPS.”
We find that the issue involved in the present Original Application is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. N.M. Raut & Others, decided on 12.12.2024 and reported as 2024 INSC 1042. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:
“16.Clause 13 of the MACPS states that any time-bound promotion scheme, including in-situ promotion scheme, which is in force, may continue to be in operation for the concerned category of employees if it is decided by the concerned administrative authorities to retain such schemes. However, such schemes cannot run concurrently with the MACPS. The objective is clear. An incumbent eligible Government employee should not take the benefit of both - the time- bound promotion scheme or in-situ promotion scheme as well as the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACPS. We have specifically referred to clause 13 for, in our opinion, the financial upgradation which is granted, after two or four years of service, to Pharmacists or Superintendents, would indicate that they availed financial upgradation. In their cases, because of service conditions, the Government had thought it proper to grant them such financial upgradation after they completed two or four years of service in the lower pay-scale/Grade Pay. It is not the intention of the Government to ignore the said upgradation under the CCS RP Rules. If we do so, we would be granting them additional benefits beyond what was envisaged and stated in the MACPS. The Revised Pay Rules, including a grant of financial benefits, and the MACPS are not two watertight or separate compartments, each conferring independent benefits without reference to the other. Grant of financial upgradations as well as promotions are to be duly accounted for and taken into consideration in the MACPS.
20.In view of the aforesaid position of the MACPS, we fail to understand how we can ignore the financial upgradation, which was granted upon completion of two or four years of service in the posts of Pharmacist or Superintendent, as the case may be, for the purpose of deciding as to whether or not the Government employee would be entitled to the next financial benefit under the MACPS. To ignore the financial upgradation granted on completion of two or four years of service as Pharmacists or Superintendents, would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the scheme, the language employed as well as the examples/illustrations which have been given. No doubt, certain anomalies may arise because of the fact that the ACPS and MACPS did operate during different periods; the nature of financial upgradations was different; and the time periods specified for financial upgradation were different, but this cannot be a ground and reason to re-write or ignore the expressed language of the MACPS and the intent and purpose behind the scheme. Read in this light, we have no difficulty in accepting the present appeal and setting aside the impugned judgments. Hence, we allow the present appeals.
21.In other words, the respondents would be entitled to the benefits of the MACPS only after taking into consideration all the financial upgradations earned by them, in terms of the CCS RP Rules. Financial upgradations under the said Rules have to be accounted for and will be treated as financial upgradations earned for the purpose of reckoning the 10-year intervals and the three assured financial upgradations, in terms of Grade Pay, under the MACPS.”
On the analysis of the above judgment, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the entitlement of Pharmacists/Superintendents to financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme, has categorically held that the financial upgradation granted to such employees upon completion of two or four years of service, as the case may be, cannot be ignored while determining their entitlement to subsequent financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the financial upgradations granted under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules and the financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme are not independent or mutually exclusive benefits. All financial upgradations and promotions earned by an employee are required to be duly accounted for while determining entitlement under the MACP Scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that ignoring the financial upgradation granted upon completion of two or four years of service would be contrary to the language, object and purpose of the MACP Scheme and would result in conferring an additional benefit which was not contemplated under the Scheme. Accordingly, financial upgradations granted under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules are required to be reckoned as financial upgradations for the purpose of determining the ten-year intervals and the 3 assured financial upgradations contemplated under the MACP Scheme.
In the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the contention of the applicants that the financial upgradation/placement granted to them upon completion of the prescribed period of service in the Pharmacist cadre is liable to be ignored for the purpose of determining their entitlement to subsequent MACP benefits cannot be accepted. The said financial upgradation has to be taken into account while reckoning the financial upgradations already availed by the applicants.
In the present case, the applicants have admittedly received financial upgradations in the course of their service, including the financial upgradation arising from their placement in the higher Grade Pay upon completion of the prescribed period of service. Such financial upgradations are required to be counted for the purpose of the MACP Scheme. Consequently, the applicants cannot claim the benefit of a further financial upgradation by excluding the financial upgradation already granted to them.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. N.M. Raut & Others (supra), we hold that the financial upgradation granted to the applicants upon completion of the prescribed period of service is liable to be reckoned as one of the financial upgradations for the purpose of the MACP Scheme. On such reckoning, the applicants have already availed three financial upgradations and, therefore, are not entitled to claim a further 3rd MACP upgradation in GP Rs.5,400/-.
In view of our findings as above, the claim of the applicants for grant of 3rd MACP in GP Rs.5,400/- cannot be sustained and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.