G. Venkataraman vs Union Of India & Ors.

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The Applicant, while working as a Senior Section Engineer (Group ‘C’) in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-, and availing the benefit of MACP in Pay Matrix Level-9 (i.e., PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-), was promoted to the higher post of Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (ADME), Group ‘B’ Gazetted, in Pay Matrix Level-8 with effect from 23.09.2009. Since the Applicant was subjected to a selection process for promotion from the lower Group ‘C’ post of Senior Section Engineer to the higher Group ‘B’ Gazetted post involving greater duties, ^{responsibilities and managerial functions, his pay ought to have been fixed}Central Administrative Tribunal at the appropriate higher stage upon such promotion in terms of Rule 1313 [FR 22(I)(a)(1)] of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. However, the Applicant was denied the benefit of higher pay fixation on such promotion. Thereafter, the Applicant was further promoted to a higher post in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- with effect from 24.09.2012. Even on such promotion, the benefit of higher pay fixation was not extended to him. In a similar matter, this Tribunal, in OA No. 717 of 2006, had allowed the benefit of pay fixation to the applicant therein. The said decision was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 30151 of 2007 and was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 12847 of 2010. The Applicant submitted a representation seeking the benefit of higher pay fixation on promotion; however, the same was rejected by the Respondents by the impugned order. Hence, the present Original Application.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the impugned denial of pay fixation on the Applicant’s promotion to the higher post of Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) is arbitrary, contrary to the applicable statutory provisions, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the denial of higher pay fixation ^{on the Applicant’s promotion to the post of ADME (Group ‘B’ Gazetted),}Central Administrative Tribunal which carries higher duties, responsibilities and managerial functions than those attached to his earlier post of Senior Section Engineer (Group ‘C’ Non-Gazetted), is in gross violation of Rule 1313 [FR 22(I)(a)(1)] of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The denial of pay fixation in accordance with the aforesaid statutory provision is, therefore, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law.

It is further submitted that the cadre of Section Engineer/Senior Section Engineer constitutes one of the feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer. The post of ADME carries higher duties and responsibilities, including managerial responsibilities, and is accordingly restricted to employees who have completed the prescribed qualifying service in the feeder cadre and fall within the prescribed zone of consideration. Therefore, denial of the consequential benefit of higher pay fixation upon such promotion is contrary to the applicable rules and is legally unsustainable. It is further pointed out that Railway Board Letter No. PC-VI/2011/IC/1 (RBE No. 95/2013) dated 12.09.2013, issued under Rule 123 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, provides for fixation of pay in cases of promotion from one post to another even where the posts carry the same scale of pay. ^{Denial of the corresponding benefit to the Applicant, despite his promotion}Central Administrative Tribunal to a post involving higher duties and responsibilities, is contrary to the statutory framework and the provisions governing pay fixation.

It is further submitted that the benefit granted under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme while the Applicant was serving in the Group ‘C’ cadre had accrued to him in accordance with the rules then applicable. Once the Applicant was subsequently promoted out of the Group ‘C’ cadre to the Group ‘B’ Gazetted post, the benefit already earned under the MACP Scheme could not legitimately be relied upon to deny him the separate statutory benefit of pay fixation available on promotion. Since the MACP Scheme does not extend to Group ‘B’ posts, interpreting the pay level/benefit acquired by the Applicant under the MACP Scheme while serving in the Group ‘C’ cadre as a ground to deny him the benefit of pay fixation on his subsequent promotion to the Group ‘B’ post would be contrary to the applicable rules and the object of the pay-fixation provisions. Such an interpretation is, therefore, legally untenable. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the Applicant prayed that the reliefs sought in the present Original Application be granted.

^6.Central Administrative Tribunal ^{In contrast, the learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently} opposed the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant and placed reliance upon the averments made in the reply statement. He submitted that the Applicant would be entitled to the benefit of pay fixation under Rule 1313 [FR 22(I)(a)(1)] only if, prior to his promotion, he was drawing pay in the scale/Grade Pay admissible to the post of Senior Section Engineer (SSE), Group ‘C’, i.e., Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- under the 6th Central Pay Commission, and was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (ADME), Group ‘B’ Gazetted, carrying Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- under the 6th Central Pay Commission. However, in the present case, while holding the Group ‘C’ post of SSE, the Applicant had already been granted higher pay in the Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- and subsequently Rs.5,400/- under the provisions of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). Such financial upgradations were granted with the consequential benefit of pay fixation under Rule 1313 [FR 22(I)(a)(1)] of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, notwithstanding that there was no corresponding assumption of higher duties or responsibilities. It was further submitted that the underlying object of granting financial upgradations under the MACPS is to provide monetary relief to employees who remain stagnated in the same grade for a considerable period without regular promotion. The financial ^upgradationCentral Administrative Tribunal ^{under the MACPS is thus intended as a monetary} compensation for stagnation and does not involve the assumption of higher duties and responsibilities attached to a promotional post.

The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the Applicant, in the present Original Application, seeks fixation of pay under FR 22 on his promotion to the post of ADME. According to the Respondents, the normal/admissible Grade Pay for the post of SSE (Group ‘C’), which the Applicant was holding immediately prior to his promotion as ADME (Group ‘B’), was Rs.4,600/- under the 6th Central Pay Commission. However, the Applicant had already been granted financial upgradation under the MACPS to the higher Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-, along with the consequential benefit of pay fixation, even though such financial upgradation did not involve the assumption of higher duties and responsibilities. It was therefore contended that granting the benefit of pay fixation once again upon the Applicant’s promotion to the Group ‘B’ cadre would amount to conferring a double benefit in respect of the same promotional progression. The Applicant, having already received the benefit of higher pay fixation through financial upgradation under the MACPS while holding the Group ‘C’ post, cannot, according to the Respondents, claim a further fixation under FR 22 merely on his ^{subsequent promotion to the Group ‘B’ post.}Central Administrative Tribunal

On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Applicant is not entitled to the relief sought in the present Original Application and prayed for dismissal of the same.

We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.

At the first instance, we would like to extract the relevant portion of the MACP Scheme which applies to the present OA for better understanding:

From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that Para 4 of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) specifically provides that the benefit of pay fixation available at the time of regular promotion shall also be allowed at the time of financial upgradation under the Scheme. The said provision further stipulates that no further fixation of pay shall be admissible at the time of regular promotion where such promotion is to a post carrying the same Grade Pay as that already granted under the MACPS. Thus, the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACPS is subject to the terms and conditions prescribed under the ^{Scheme, including the restriction contained in Para 4 thereof.}Central Administrative Tribunal

In the present case, while the Applicant was holding the post of Senior Section Engineer (SSE), Group ‘C’, carrying a Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- under the 6th Central Pay Commission, he was granted financial upgradations under the MACPS to the higher Grade Pays of Rs.4,800/- and subsequently Rs.5,400/-, along with the consequential benefit of pay fixation under Rule 1313 [FR 22(I)(a)(1)] of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II. Such financial upgradations were granted in accordance with the specific provisions of the MACPS and were intended to provide monetary advancement to the Applicant on account of stagnation in the cadre, notwithstanding that such financial upgradation did not involve the assumption of higher duties and responsibilities attached to a regular promotional post.

In these circumstances, the Applicant’s claim for a further benefit of pay fixation under FR 22 upon his promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (ADME), Group ‘B’, carrying Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/-, cannot be accepted. The Applicant had already been granted the higher Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- under the MACPS, together with the benefit of pay fixation. Granting another pay fixation on his subsequent ^{regular promotion, particularly when the promotional post carried a Grade}Central Administrative Tribunal Pay lower than that already enjoyed by him under the MACPS, would result in conferment of an additional fixation benefit over and above the benefit already granted under the Scheme.

The benefit of pay fixation cannot be claimed independently of the conditions governing the MACPS. The fact that the Applicant’s financial upgradation under the MACPS was not accompanied by the assumption of higher duties or responsibilities does not, by itself, entitle him to a second fixation of pay on his subsequent promotion when the applicable rules operate to restrict such further fixation. The financial upgradation under the MACPS and regular promotion are governed by distinct provisions, and the former cannot be utilised to secure an additional fixation benefit contrary to the express terms of the Scheme.

Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Para 4 of the MACPS and the fact that the Applicant had already received financial upgradation to Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- with consequential pay fixation while holding the Group ‘C’ post, we are of the considered view that he is not entitled to any further benefit of pay fixation under FR 22 on his subsequent promotion to the Group ‘B’ post of ADME carrying Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/-. The claim of the Applicant, if allowed, would result in ^{extending a further pay-fixation benefit despite the Applicant having}Central Administrative Tribunal already received the benefit of higher pay under the MACPS, which is impermissible under the extant rules. Accordingly, the claim for further pay fixation on promotion is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

In the result, the OA is dismissed as devoid of merits. Parties shall bear the costs.