K.R. Jayakumar & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr.

According to the applicants, they were inducted in ASM cadre in direct entry grade as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 9 of Annexure A-1. 50% of the post is meant for direct recruitment, 25% by Signallers and 25% by Switchmen etc as shown in Annexure A-2. The official profile of the applicants have been stated separately.

Regarding the first applicant, it is submitted that he had started as a Signaller in Madras Division on 31.03.1983 and came to Trivandrum Division in 1984 on mutual transfer. The cadre of Signaller stands abolished during 1986-1987 and the incumbents were absorbed in other cadres as opted by them. Some of them went as Guards, Ticket Examiners, Office Clerks etc. The first applicant opted for ASM cadre and thus, he was absorbed as ASM on 14.01.1987 which was not against Signallers 25% quota as shown in Annexure A-2. He was promoted as ASM in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 (now Pay Band Rs.5200-20200 with GP of Rs.2800/-). He was promoted as SM III in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 on 07.04.1989, then, as SM II in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 with the same grade pay on 01.03.1993. He became SM I in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- on 29.11.1987 and Station Manager in the scale of Rs.7450/- - 11500 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- on 01.11.2003, without any further promotion.

Regarding the second applicant, it is submitted that he was appointed initially as Commercial Clerk in Trivandrum Division on 16.06.1983. He was selected as ASM in 1987 in the scale of Rs.1200/- -2040/- (Grade Pay Rs.2800/-), was promoted as SM III in June 1989 in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 (GP 4200), SM II in scale Rs.5500/- - 9000 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in June 1998, as SM I in the pay of Rs.6500-10500/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- on 19.07.2005 and is continuing as Traffic Inspector, Trichur. His induction as ASM on 16.06.1983 was not in terms of para 122 of Annexure A-2.

Similarly it is submitted that the third applicant had started as Commercial Clerk in Palaghat division on 16.05.1988. He was selected as ASM on 25.09.1990, was promoted as SM III in the scale of Rs.5000/- - 8000 with GP of Rs.4200 on 25.07.1993. He came to Trivandrum Division on request transfer on 17.02.2002 in the scale Rs.4500-7000 with GP of Rs.2800/- on bottom seniority. He was promoted as SM III in scale of Rs.5000-8000 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- on 25.07.2008 and is continuing as such. His induction as ASM on 16.05.1988 was also not in terms of Annexure A-2.

Applicants 4 and 5 were appointed as Traffic Porters - Group D employees, on 25.01.1980 and 12.01.1980 respectively in Trivandrum Division. They were selected on merit as ASMs on

13.04.1996, promoted as SM III in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 with grade pay of Rs.4200 on 15.11.1999 and are still continuing in that grade.

According to the applicants, the ban on granting 1st MACP to those who sought unilateral transfer to lower grade as per para 24 of A-1 scheme was lifted vide DoPT O.M dated 04.10.2012. Accordingly, past promotion in the previous organisation/office will be ignored for the purpose of grant of MACPs in the new organisation/office.

In terms of para 5 of A-1, promotion to grades Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.7450-11500 earned by any SM shall be ignored for the purpose of MACPs. Observing the above relaxations and exemptions and ignoring the past service prior to joining the direct entry grade, the respondents should have suo-motu granted MACP scheme upgradations to eligible employees. There is no need to make application for the same. But the applicants were first told that their turn has not come. Ultimately they were not granted any upgradation under MACPs. No reason was stated for overlooking them. Thus, they made individual representations (Annexure A3 series) and as there is no response to these representations, they have approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

According to the applicants, the term 'direct entry grade' mentioned in paras 1 and 9 of Annexure A-1 denotes that grade in a cadre filled by direct recruitment/absorption/re-employment from which 'regular service' commences as explained in para 9. Annexure A-2 shows that the 'direct entry grade' for Station Masters grade is Rs.1200-2040/4500-7000/5200-20200 plus GP of Rs.2800/- as the case may be, which is filled up to the extent of 50% by direct recruitment and the rest by promotion/absorption/re-employment. In view of the rule for counting of service for MACP scheme stipulated in paras 1 and 9 of Annexure A-1, the service of the applicants before joining the cadre of ASMs in scale of Rs.1200-2040/- shall be ignored for the purpose of MACPs. Otherwise, there will be disparity between direct recruits and promotees.

In terms of para 5 of Annexure A-1, due to merger, the promotion of applicant no.1 as SM II (GP 4200/-) on 1.3.1993 and as SMR (GP Rs.4600/-) on 1.11.1993 shall be ignored. What is countable in his case is posting as ASM (GP 2800) on 14.01.1987, as SM III (GP 4200)

on 7.4.1989 and SM1 (GP 4600) on 29.11.1997. Hence he is eligible to get GP of Rs.4800/- by granting third MACP on 1.9.2008 in terms of paras 1 and 2 of Annexure A-1.

According to the applicants, posting of the 2nd applicant as SM II (GP 4200) in June 1998 has to be ignored. What is countable is ASM with grade pay of Rs.2800/- in 1987, SM III with GP of Rs.4200/- in June 1989 and SM I with GP of Rs.4600/- on 19.07.2005. Third MACP with GP of Rs.4800/- on 19.07.2015 and consequential benefits is due to him.

Further it is submitted that, in accordance with DoP&T O.M dated 04.10.2012, referred to in para 4 (g), the promotion of applicant no.3 as SM III (GP 4200) in Palaghat division on 25.07.1993 shall be ignored. What is countable in his case is ASM with GP of 2800/- granted on 25.09.1990 and promotion as SM III (GP 4200) on 25.07.2008 in Trivandrum Division. Counting twenty years of service from 25.09.1990, he is eligible for the second MACP with GP of Rs.4600/-on 25.09.2010 with all attendant benefits.

With regard to applicant nos.4 and 5, it is submitted that they were appointed as ASMs (GP 2800) on 13.04.1996, promoted as SM III with GP of Rs.4200/- on 15.01.1999 which was the first MACP

scale. Having spent 10 years in GP 4200, they are eligible for second MACP with GP of Rs.4600/- on 15.01.2009 with all consequential benefits.

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer has filed reply on behalf of both the respondents challenging the very maintainability of the O.A and denying the contentions of the applicants. According to them, the applicants have not sought leave of the Tribunal for joining together and on that score alone, the Original Application is liable to be rejected.

Further, all the applicants had joined Group C post of Assistant Station Master from Group D posts through promotional quota by general selection. As such, the same is considered as promotion for the purpose of granting financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. Eligibility for appearing for the said selection is that the employee should be either from Group C or Group D with 5 years of regular service, with upper age limit of 45 years and 50 years for SC/ST employees respectively, whereas for direct recruitment, the desired qualification is degree and diploma in Rail Transport and age between 25 to 30 years. As such their selection against 25% promotional quota cannot be termed as selection against direct entry. Further, MACP scheme is calculated from the direct recruitment grade and all the applicants were appointed in Group D posts and later promoted as Assistant Station Master under promotional quota only. Therefore, the plea that their service rendered/ post held before posting as Assistant Station Master should be ignored for the grant of MACP is not sustainable.

It is also submitted that the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. The applicants had moved representations only in 2015, after a period of 7 years. Such a belated representation will not save the period of limitation.

It is submitted that applicants were promoted as Assistant Station Masters, a Group C post, from Group 'D' posts having lesser pay scale by way of selection against the promotional quota earmarked for the employees who are in lesser pay scale with relaxed standard than the eligibility conditions earmarked for direct recruitment quota. The respondents have detailed the official profile of the applicants separately in tabular forms and submitted that the applicants are not entitled to get the benefits as such.

The attempt of the respondents is that the applicants except the third applicant have obtained three promotions already and therefore, they are not entitled to get MACP benefits as stated by them. With regard to the third applicant it is submitted that he was given second promotion as SM III with grade pay of Rs.4200/- on 25.07.2008 and will be entitled for the third MACP on 25.07.2018, if no promotion is granted to him prior to that.

Expatiating the tables, it is submitted that the first applicant had started as a Signaller and was appointed as Assistant Station Master against 25% quota meant for Signallers for promotion. He had started as Signaller in 1983, was selected and promoted as Assistant Station Master in 1987 and therefore, he cannot be treated against direct recruitment quota. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Station Master Grade III in 1989, Station Master Grade II in 1993 and Station Master Grade I in 1997 and Station Superintendent in 2003. The grade pay of SM III and SM II were merged with GP of Rs.4200/-, and SM I and Station Master were merged with GP of Rs.4600/- according to the 6th CPC recommendations. Since the applicant no.1 had earned three promotions in his career, he is not entitled for further promotion and financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

With regard to the second applicant, it is submitted that he had started as Commercial Clerk in Trivandrum Division on 16.06.1983 and was selected as ASM in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 (GP Rs.2800) in 1987. He was promoted as SM-III in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 (GP Rs.4200) in June 1989; as SM II in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 (GP Rs.4200) in June 1998; he became SM I in scale of Rs.6500-10500 (GP Rs.4600) on 19.07.2005 and continued as Traffic Inspector, Trichur. His induction as ASM on 16.06.1983 was not in terms of para 122 of Annexure A-2.

Regarding the third applicant, it is submitted that he was appointed as Commercial Clerk on 16.05.1988 in the scale of Rs.975-1540 (GP of Rs.2000/-), was selected and appointed as Assistant Station Master in Rs.1200-2040 (GP of Rs.2800/-) against Commercial Clerk quota on 15.11.1990 against 15% promotional quota earmarked for the Group C and Group D staff of the Operating and Commercial departments. He was further promoted as SM III in Rs.1400-2300/5000-8000 (GP of Rs.4200/-) on 30.07.2003 and transferred to Trivandrum Division on inter-railway transfer on his own request on reversion as ASM in pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 on 18.02.2002, with pay protection. After joining Trivandrum Division, he got one more promotion as SM III with GP of Rs.4200/- on 25.07.2008 and it is treated as his second promotion. Since he has earned two effective promotions in his service with GP of Rs.2800 and GP of Rs.4200/-, he is eligible to be considered for granting third MACP on GP Rs.4600 /level 7 in the 7th CPC on 25.07.2018 only, after completion of 10 years from the date of second promotion from 25.07.2008.

Regarding the fourth applicant, it is submitted that he had joined as Traffic Porter in scale of Rs.196-232 (GP 1800) on 31.10.1985 and later promoted as Gate Keeper with same GP on 28.01.1990. In the 6th CPC, both the Group D posts were merged into one post with GP Rs.1800. Further, he was promoted as Gate Keeper in pay scale Rs.950-1500 (GP Rs.1900) on 18.04.1995, which is his first promotion. As per RBE 217/2009, promotion/financial upgradation earned by existing Group D employees to grade pay of Rs.1900/- shall be counted for the purpose of MACPS. Further, he was selected and promoted as ASM in scale of Rs.4500-7000 with GP of Rs.2800/- against Gate Keeper quota on 23.12.1996, which is the second promotion, against promotional quota, earmarked for Gate Keepers. Again, he was promoted as SM III in Rs.5000-8000 (GP of Rs.4200/-) with effect from 15.01.1999, which is his third promotion. Subsequently, he was promoted as Station Superintendent with GP of Rs.4600 on 30.06.2016, which is his 4th promotion. Since he has earned more than three promotions in service, he is not entitled for getting financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

Similarly, regarding the 5th applicant, it is submitted that he had joined as Traffic Porter in scale of Rs.196-232 (GP Rs.1800) on 31.10.1985 and earned his first promotion as Gate Keeper in the scale of Rs.950-1500/- (GP Rs.1900) on 18.04.1995. Further, he was selected and promoted as Assistant Station Master in pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 (GP Rs.2800) on 23.12.1996, which is his second promotion against the promotional quota earmarked for Gate Keepers. Again, he was promoted as SM III in scale of Rs.5000-8000 (GP of Rs.4200/-) with effect from 24.08.1999, which is his third promotion. Since he has earned three effective promotions, is not eligible for the benefit of 3rd MACP.

Regarding the averments in the Original Application, referring to Annexure R-1 communication, it is submitted that “... wherever an official, in accordance with terms and conditions of transfer on own volition to a lower post, is reverted to the lower post/grade from the promoted post/grade before being relieved for the new organisation/office, such past promotion in the previous organisation/office will be ignored for the purpose of MACP scheme in the new organisation/office. In respect of those cases where benefit of pay protection have been allowed at the time of unilateral transfer to other organisation/unit and thus the employee had carried the financial benefit of promotion, the promotion earned in previous organisation has to be reckoned for the purpose of MACP". According to the respondents, even after ignoring the promotion in the same grade pay under sixth CPC, the applicants are not eligible for MACP benefits as all of them were promoted to the post of Assistant Station Master and the past services and promotions earned are to be counted for granting financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. The applicants' claim that they should have been given MACP suo-motu is not sustainable as none of them are eligible for the benefit.

Thus, it is submitted that applicants 1, 2, 4 and 5 have obtained three promotions in their career, are not entitled to get any further benefit under the MACP scheme. The third applicant is eligible to get third MACP on 25.07.2018 after completion of ten years which can be granted.

Further, it is submitted that post of ASM is filled 50% by direct recruitment, 25% by promotion through selection from amongst Signallers and 25% by promotion through selection from amongst Switchmen failing which by Levermen, Cabinmen, only against the first 10% of the vacancies; short fall, if any, against the remaining 15% vacancies to be added to direct recruitment vacancies. Since all the applicants were selected and promoted to the post of ASM against the respective promotional quota earmarked for them, they cannot seek the benefit of direct recruits. Thus the Original Application is sought to be dismissed.

The applicants filed a rejoinder along with Annexure A-4 and A-5 communications issued by the Railway Board dated 12.09.2012 and 23.11.2015 respectively. The averment in the reply that the applicants had joined as ASMs on promotion from Group D post is incorrect. The term 'direct entry grade' used in paragraphs 1 and 9 of the MACP scheme shall be understood properly. Direct entry grade herein was Assistant Station Master grade in scale of Rs.1200-2040 with GP of Rs.2800/- which accommodated 50% direct recruits, 25% Signallers and 25% Switchmen/Lever-men/Cabin-men at the material time. The counting of service envisaged in paras 1 and 9 of the MACP Scheme is not from the date of appointment, but from the 'direct entry grade'. As per extant orders 50% of the temporary status/ casual labour service is countable for MACPs. But the change over from casual labour to temporary status and from there to regular appointment are not treated as promotions or upgradations. In order to ensure equal opportunities to direct recruits, promotees and otherwise inducted incumbents in the Station Master cadre, their service shall be counted from the 'direct entry grade' which is ASM. According to them, their service prior to entering the 'direct entry grade' shall be ignored. For this reason only, the Railway Board had issued Annexure A4 communication dated 12.09.2012.

The averment in the reply statement that the Original Application is barred by limitation is denied. There is no delay in filing the application. The original application has been filed within one year and six months from the submissions of Annexure A-3 series representations.

It is submitted that there is no quota for Commercial Clerk for promotion as ASM. The applicants 2 and 3 were selected as ASM on merit in the competitive examination of 1987/1988. Similarly, applicants 4 and 5 were appointed as Traffic Porters (Group D) in 1980 and were promoted as ASMs on the basis of competitive examination held in 1996. Thus, the period of service have to be reckoned by treating the entry grade as Assistant Station Master.

The respondents filed an additional reply statement to the rejoinder. In order to buttress the contention that the applicants were appointed as Assistant Station Masters by promotion, relevant extracts from the service records, Annexures R2 to R6, have been produced and it is submitted that all the applicants were promoted in the category of Assistant Station Master in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 as against the quota prescribed for promotion. Therefore, previous services rendered by the applicants have to be counted for consideration of eligibility for granting the benefits of MACP scheme.

Regarding Annexure A-4, it is submitted that it deals with the treatment of employees selected under LDCE/GDCE scheme. Such a circular is not applicable in the case of the applicants since their entry in ASM category was through promotion quota by general selection and was not on absorption/direct recruitment as claimed by the applicants. Further, it is submitted that Annexure A-5 also has no relevance in the present context.

We heard Shri.Martin G Thottan, learned counsel for the applicants and Smt.Girija K.Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in detail.

It is submitted that all the applicants have since retired from service. All of them were inducted as ASMs from other cadres of the Southern Railway. Therefore, their entry in ASM cadre has to be treated as entry cadre and it was not by promotion. Similarly, it is reiterated that Commercial Clerks had no quota; similarly the post of Signaller stood abolished in 1987. He also referred to IREM Volume I para 122(1) and submitted that the applicants reached the post through direct entry only.

Further, referring to Annexure A-1, paragraphs 1 and 9, he submitted that MACP envisages service reckoned from direct entry only, since the post of Signaller was abolished in 1987, it cannot be treated as promotion. Even if it is treated as promotion, it should be treated as direct entry only. Similarly Commercial Clerk cannot claim 25% quota as they are not included in Annexure A-2. They also should be treated as direct recruits. Posting of ASM cannot be treated as promotion and therefore, the applicants are entitled to get benefits as claimed by them. Since all the applicants should be treated as direct entry Assistant Station Masters, they fall under clause (i) of Annexure A-4 clarification issued by the Railway Board on 12.09.2012. So according to learned counsel, their service for the purpose of grant of MACP should be treated only from the date they were posted as Assistant Station Masters. Their previous services in lower categories either as a Group C or Group D prior to the appointment of ASM cannot be reckoned for the purpose of grant of MACP.

On the other hand, according to Smt.Girija K.Gopal, contentions on bar under limitation cannot be brushed aside. The applicants did not file any delay petition. There is no plea that it is a continuing cause of action. The belated representations cannot revive the cause of action. Similarly, they have not moved any application for joining together, so that a common relief cannot be sought; after seeking individual reliefs, they cannot move together.

According to the learned Standing Counsel, in MACPs what is important is their service. Entire career of the applicants have to be looked into. All the applicants were already in service. What is relevant is not the post, but the service that has to be stressed for the purpose of grant of MACP. According to the learned Standing Counsel, from 2018 onwards, Commercial Clerks are in the feeder category. The applicants cannot dispute their own service records which have been produced as Annexures R2 to R6 and therefore, the applicants cannot succeed.

The learned Standing Counsel, with reference to Annexure A-4, has submitted that all the applicants are promotees to the post of ASMs. Their prior service in whatever cadre they had been working in Railways should be reckoned for the purpose of grant of MACP that their posting as ASM cannot be taken as entry grade; all of them fall within the ambit of clause (ii).

The maintainability of the Original Application has been disputed raising two fold contentions. Firstly it was submitted that though five applicants have joined the Original Application, they have not moved any M.A for joining together as provided under Rule 4(5)(a) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. But the order dated 19.07.2016 shows that when the Original Application had come up for admission, M.A 774 of 2016, application for joining together was also presented, which was allowed at the time of admission itself. Therefore, such a contention cannot survive. Even otherwise, all the applicants hold same post and identical reliefs are sought against them, the cause of action also appears same and therefore, the Original Application cannot be rejected on that ground.

Secondly, it was urged that the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act . But having regard to the reliefs sought for and also the Annexure A-3 series representations submitted by the applicants, there is considerable force in this contention of the respondents. We have already extracted the reliefs claimed by the applicants. They are aggrieved by non-granting of MACP from 2008, 2009 and 2010. But Annexure A3 series representations were given only during April, June and July 2015, long after the occurrence of the causes of action. A belated representation cannot be used to revive a stale claim. Here the applicants do not tender any reason for not highlighting their grievance before the appropriate authorities at the relevant time.

In this connection, the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S.Lalitha & Others (2025 KHC 6393), made in an identical background deserve to be highlighted:

In such a situation, the Apex Court ruled that such a time barred O.A should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the applicants have projected a stale claim.

Even though we held that the Original Application is barred by limitation, for the sake of completeness, we are bound to consider the merits of the case also. Turning to the merits, we are of the view that all the contentions raised by the respondents are really formidable. All the applicants had started in Railways in different capacities. The first applicant had started as a Signaller in the Railways on 28.03.1983 and had become Assistant Station Master on 14.01.1987. Similarly, applicants 2 and 3 had started as Commercial Clerks in 1983 and 1988 respectively, whereas applicants 4 and 5 were Parcel Porters, commenced service in 1980 and then promoted as Gate Keepers and became ASM on 23.12.1986. Annexure A-2, the extract from the Indian Railway Establishment Manual 1989 edition has been highlighted by the applicants to say that the recruitment to the post of ASM was done as per clause 122(1). Thus, it was said that 50% of the post of ASM had to be filled up by direct recruitment, 25% by promotion through selection amongst Signallers and the remaining '25% by promotion through selection from amongst Switchmen failing which by Levermen, Cabinmen only against the first 10% of the vacancies; shortfall if any, against the remaining 15% vacancies to be added to direct recruitment vacancies'. (emphasis supplied).

Though the first applicant had started as a Signaller, according to the learned counsel, the post of Signaller was abolished in 1987 and those persons holding the post of Signaller were absorbed in other categories and the first applicant was appointed as a direct entry Assistant Station Master, hence his service can be reckoned only from the date of his appointment as Assistant Station Master on 14.01.1987. This contention has been denied by the respondents. Similarly, it is not disputed that the applicants 2 and 3 had started as Commercial Clerks; according to the applicants, there is no quota ear-marked for Commercial Clerks and they have to be treated as direct entry Assistant Station Masters. Similar is the case of applicants 4 and 5 who had started as Porters then promoted as Gate Keepers and then selected as Assistant Station Masters on 23.12.1986. In short, the applicants wanted to say that all of them had become Assistant Station Masters, falling in clause (i) of Annexure A-4, so that, their past services cannot be reckoned for the purpose of grant of MACP. As stated earlier, the respondents have taken a contra-view on this question. They have also relied on Annexures R2 to R6 extracts from the service records of the applicants and submitted that all of them were appointed as Station Masters by promotion only.

The claim of the applicants is that eventhough they had put in long years of service, they were never given the benefits of MACP though they had completed more than 30 years service. At the same time, the career profile of the applicants shown in the tables incorporated in the reply are not in dispute. Now, the most important question is whether in which category, whether in clause (i) or clause (ii) of Annexure A-4 they fall. If they fall within clause (i), naturally they are entitled to get the benefit of the MACP scheme reckoning the dates of appointment as ASM as entry grade. So the attempt of the learned counsel is that all of them fall within clause (i) whereas the learned Standing Counsel has submitted, with reference to the materials produced by her that all of them fall within clause (ii) and are not entitled to get the benefit of the MACP.

At the time of final hearing, the learned Standing Counsel also submitted in continuation of the averments in the reply statement that the 3rd applicant has since been granted 3rd MACP on 18.08.2018 in level 8 and thereafter, he was promoted as Station Superintendent on 25.06.2019. We record the said submission.

In order to appreciate the contentions of the counsel on both sides, it is appropriate to reproduce Annexure A-4 communication regarding the treatment of employees selected under LDCE/GDCE scheme which is the clarification issued by the Railway Board, below:

Now, as hinted earlier, they fall in clause (i), necessarily they will be entitled to get the benefit of MACP treating their appointment as ASM as entry grade, whereas, if they fall in clause (ii), naturally, they will be out of court and their claims will automatically stand rejected.

Before proceeding to individual cases, it is necessary to make certain general observations regarding the pleadings and averments made by the applicants. All of them have now retired from service. They had become Assistant Station Masters after entering in Railway service in other cadres. While asserting that they had reached Assistant Station Master cadre by way of direct entry, it is for the applicants to prove that their appointment was treated direct entry, for which orders of appointment would have thrown ample light. But we notice that none of the order of appointment has been produced by the applicants. Such orders would have given clear idea as to how they had reached the cadre of Station Master. The non-production of such orders is a matter of adverse inference. The applicant is the master of the proceedings. It is for the applicant to make-out that they had reached Assistant Station Master Grade through direct entry.

In this connection, clause 9 of Annexure A-1 reads thus:

From the above it is very clear that joining the post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/reemployment basis alone shall be considered for grant of MACP. Here, from Annexure A-2, it is clear that there are different components and different sources of appointment to the post of Assistant Station Master. 50% is earmarked for direct recruitment and from the remaining 50%, 25% by Signallers and the balance 25% have been set apart for other categories for appointment as ASM. As adverted to earlier, the applicants have not produced any document to show that they fall within the category of 50% by direct recruitment. All of them had joined ASM after having worked in different categories. The first applicant had started as a Signaller, applicant no.2 and 3 had joined as Commercial Clerks and applicant nos.4 & 5 had started as Porters then promoted as Gate Keeper. That means, in the absence of materials to show that they were appointed on direct recruitment, they should be taken to have come in the latter 50% of the posts set apart for promotion to other categories in the Railway service. From the clause in MACP Scheme quoted supra, it is apparent that even past services in other government or department also will be counted for the purpose of grant of MACP subjected to certain conditions. Therefore, the applicants have suppressed material facts and purposely did not produce their orders of appointment which is very important in deciding the claim. In this context, the Annexure R-2 to R-6 extracts from the service records of the applicants give sufficient inputs to decide the issue.

During the course of argument, the learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of communication P.B Circular No.121/1987 and a copy of letter no.E(NG)/11/84/RC 3/15 (AIRF) dated 15.05.1987 which read thus:

That is a communication issued in 1987. Annexure A2 shows that the latter 50% is set apart for Signallers and certain other categories like Switch-men, Lever-men, Cabin-Men etc. But from this communication, it is clear that Annexure A-2 is not sacrosanct and other categories like Commercial and Traffic Apprentices were also being considered for appointment to the post of Station Master. We referred to the above communication to stress that appointments by promotion to the post of Station Master was available to other cadres in the Railway as well.

It is also the admitted position that the post of Signaller was abolished in 1987. The first applicant was appointed as Assistant Station Master in 1987. The applicant wanted to say that he was appointed as Assistant Station Master on selection and not as absorption. But from Annexure R2 extract from the service records of the first applicant, it is clear that he was deputed for ASM training during June 1986, even before the post of Signaller was abolished. Secondly, it is seen that he was appointed on promotion as Assistant Station Master on 10.01.1987 after having successfully completed the training for ASMs. That means, the claim of the applicant that he was appointed by selection and not by promotion goes to the ground. The claim of the applicant that he was appointed as ASM after abolition of the post of Signaller is also incorrect. He was deputed for training for ASM in June 1986 even before the abolition of the post in 1987 and thereafter it is shown that he was promoted and appointed as Assistant Station Master, after successful completion of the training.

Extracts shows that the 2nd applicant was deputed for ASM training, by order dated 07.10.1986, from 20.10.1986 to 20.04.1987. After passing the training, he was temporarily promoted to officiate as ASM, by order dated 21.04.1987.

Similarly, service extracts from the 3rd applicant Mr.Johnson Shows that, he had 'appeared for the written test for promotion as ASM and found suitable for promotion subject to successful completion of the prescribed training'. He was later deputed for training course commencing from 23.10.1989 and on successful completion of 'ASM training course, promoted to officiate as ASM in scale of Rs.1200-2040'- on 08.11.1990, took up independent duty on 15.11.1990.

Similarly the relevant entries of the service records of the applicant 4 and 5 also do indicate that they were promoted as Assistant Station Master while working as Gate Keepers. Both of them were selected and promoted as ASMs by order dated 04.06.1996 and were sent for training. It seems that both had failed in the training at first and were directed to repeat the course. On passing the training, both were promoted to officiate as ASMs, by order of December 1996. These entries also suggest that the applicants were appointed as Assistant Station Masters without following Annexure A-2. That means, all these applicants fall only within clause (ii) of Annexure A-4, so that they are not entitled to get the benefit of MACPs.

It is the settled proposition of law that any career progression scheme, whether ACP or MACP, is intended to avoid stagnation in a particular cadre. In other words, if an employee remains stagnated and dormant without promotion for long period of time, he is entitled to get the benefit of career progression under the MACP. Regular promotion is antithesis of the time bound career progression scheme. If the employee gets promotion and gets hike in the scale of pay, naturally he will not be entitled to get the benefits of the MACP scheme, if there is no material like merger etc as provided under the scheme.

The service profile of the applicants stated in the reply statement clearly indicate that they have secured more than three promotions in the career. Their appointment as Assistant Station Master was not by direct appointment or through 50% meant for direct recruitment. All of them had come up in the ladders by promotion only. Therefore, they are not entitled to get further benefits under the MACP Scheme.

The Original application fails and is dismissed. No costs.