AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:
(i)This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned action of recovery of Rs. 29133/- from the pension of applicant. This Hon’ble Court may further direct the departmental respondents to not to initiate any recovery and pay pension to the applicant as per his entitlement and also refund the recovered amount with admissible interest.
(ii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.
(iii)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.
The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that the applicant is claiming the benefit of MACP, which had already been granted to him but was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents, along with refund of the amount recovered from him pursuant thereto. The plea of the applicant is that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Special Leave Petitions preferred against the said judgments have also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further the case of the applicant that the promotion earned by him in the cadre of Guard is not liable to be counted at this stage for the purpose of denying him the benefit of MACP. The applicant has annexed the PPO dated 29.08.2024 issued in his favour as Annexure No. A-1; the judgment passed by this Bench in a bunch of cases, including OA No. 321/2015, decided on 11.10.2018, as Annexure No. A-2; the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 3898/2019 along with a bunch of connected writ petitions as Annexure No. A-3; and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 43099/2023 as Annexure No. A-4. Annexure No. A-6 is the revised PPO, Annexure No. A-7 is the withdrawal statement issued by the State Bank of India, and Annexure No. A-8 is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (AIR 2015 SC 696), decided on 18.12.2024.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavit refuting the facts disclosed in the OA and stated that applicant is not entitled for MACP benefit, therefore, OA is not liable to be allowed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the benefit of MACP had initially been granted to the applicant but was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents, despite the issue relating to grant of MACP having already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that, in any event, no recovery could have been effected from the applicant. Referring to the judgments annexed with the OA, learned counsel for the applicant therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to restore the benefit of MACP earlier granted to the applicant and extend all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter affidavit as well as the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9346/2026, arising out of SLP (C) No. 35363/2025, Union of India & Others vs. Harbans Lal Verma, decided on 23.07.2026, submitted that the amount recovered from the applicant has already been refunded and, therefore, prayer No. 2 has become infructuous. He further submitted that the issue regarding restoration of the MACP benefit has also become infructuous, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now conclusively settled the issue by holding that the three promotions earned by the Guards in their original cadre are required to be taken into consideration while determining their entitlement to the benefit of MACP and, consequently, the employees who had already earned three promotions in their original cadre could not claim any further benefit of MACP after merger of the three cadres of Guards. It was further submitted that the issue involved in the earlier SLPs, which had been left open, now stands finally settled by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents contended that, in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no relief survives for consideration in the present OA and, being devoid of merit and having become infructuous, the same is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.
Here, it is pertinent to mention that learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the entire amount recovered from the applicant has already been refunded to him. In view of the aforesaid statement, the prayer of the applicant for refund of the recovered amount has become infructuous. Since the statement made on behalf of the respondents has not been disputed or controverted by learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that no further adjudication is required on this issue. However, in case the entire recovered amount has not, in fact, been refunded to the applicant, the respondents are directed to refund the remaining amount to the applicant in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra).
As far as granting of MACP benefit is concerned, it will be useful to quote the relevant para of Harbans Lal Verma (supra) case. The same is as under:-
62.The position is further fortified when the nature of the duties attached to each promotional post within the Guard cadre is examined alongside the financial consequences of each promotion. A Senior Goods Guard is primarily engaged in freight operations with relatively limited safety exposure and public-interface obligations. A Senior Passenger Guard is entrusted with passenger train operations, carries heightened safety responsibilities, and is required to manage emergencies, chain-pulling incidents, and continuous public accountability. A Mail/Express Guard operates high-speed trains under stringent time-bound conditions, shoulders the highest degree of public safety responsibility within the cadre, and is subject to intensive vigilance scrutiny. Each of these transitions represents a substantive increase in operational burden and accountability. The Railway Board's own executive instructions reflect this progression precisely: the additional allowance of Rs. 750 per month plus Dearness Allowance for Senior Passenger Guard and Rs. 1125 per month plus Dearness Allowance for Mail/Express Guard are specifically calibrated to the enhanced demands of those posts. An employee who progressed from freight-train duty to the operation of high-speed mail and express services, receiving at each stage enhanced emoluments commensurate with those enhanced demands, experienced a career of continuous advancement. The stagnation that the MACPS was designed to remedy is the condition of an employee who, through the absence of promotional opportunity, has been denied the financial benefits that promotion carries. The Respondent is not such an employee.
63.This Court is also mindful of the structural consequence of a contrary holding. If a Mail/Express Guard the holder of the terminal post of the Guard cadre, the highest functional achievement within that cadre is granted MACP at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and then Rs. 4800, he will, as a matter of financial entitlement, draw a Grade Pay higher than the highest Grade Pay available to any Guard on any actual promotion. The MACPS, on the Respondent's reading, would place a Guard who has been promoted to the highest post of his cadre at a financial level higher than that of the highest post. This result is structurally anomalous. It means that the MACPS, on the Respondent's interpretation, is not merely providing a substitute for promotion it is creating financial entitlements that have no anchor whatsoever in the cadre's structure. That cannot have been the intent of a scheme premised on the idea of financial progression in lieu of promotional advancement.
64.The consistent views of the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 18244/2013 and the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6398/2016, both decided in favour of the employees, have been noted. Those judgments, and the SLPs filed against them which were dismissed in 07.11.2023 with the question of law left open, represent one strand of judicial opinion on this question. As this Court has explained in the preceding paragraphs, the analysis in those decisions to the extent it holds that the Paragraph 5 illustration overrides Paragraph 8 for the Guard cadre, or that Guard cadre movements are not promotions under Paragraph 8 does not, in this Court's considered view, correctly apply the provisions of the MACPS. The dismissal of the SLPs against those judgments with the question of law left open reflects this Court's deliberate choice not to endorse those decisions as declaring the law; it was a choice that preserved the question for the present occasion. The present judgment resolves that question, with the benefit of full argument, in a contrary direction.
65.This Court records its conclusions on the question formulated above as follows: (i) Paragraph 8 of the MACPS applies to the Guard cadre. The posts of Senior Goods Guard, Passenger Guard, Senior Passenger Guard, and Mail/Express Guard are distinct posts in the promotional hierarchy as per the applicable Recruitment Rules, carrying the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 in Pay Band PB-2. The functional promotions earned within the Guard cadre constitute "promotions" within the meaning of Paragraph 8. An employee who has traversed the Guard cadre up to Mail/Express Guard has earned three promotions counted under Paragraph 8 (with the Passenger Guard to Senior Passenger Guard movement ignored under Paragraph 5) and has thereby exhausted all three financial upgradation slots under the MACPS. He is not entitled to any further financial upgradation.
(ii)It is further recorded that the promotions so earned were not, in substance, financially inconsequential merely because Grade Pay remained constant. Each promotion within the Guard cadre entailed a promotional increment and the consequential enhancement of running-duty allowances and post-specific emoluments, the details of which have been noted in the preceding analysis. An employee who received these financial benefits through successive promotions has not experienced financial stagnation within the meaning of the MACPS and is not entitled to further financial upgradation under the Scheme on that ground.
(iii)The illustration to Paragraph 5, correctly understood, is a transitional provision addressing the treatment of pre-MACPS ACPera promotions and upgradations. It does not override Paragraph 8 in respect of the post01.09.2008 MACPS period. The Guard cadre's pre-revised pay scales correspond to those in the illustration, but the illustration directs only that pre-MACPS promotions be ignored for the purpose of the MACPS starting count; it does not direct that all subsequent promotions earned within the MACPS period, or all promotions earned before the MACPS period but counted under Paragraph 8, are similarly to be ignored.
(iv)RBE No. 76/2011 and RBE No. 142/2012, as DoPT-consulted binding executive clarifications of the MACPS, correctly apply Paragraph 8 to the Guard cadre and correctly reflect the position that MACP upgradation cannot exceed the Grade Pay ceiling of the promotional hierarchy. These circulars are in conformity with, and not in derogation of, the parent Scheme. They must be given full effect.
(v)The ratio of this Court in Union of India v. Mukti Singha, Civil Appeal No. 3321/2018, and Union of India v. Birendra Kujur, Civil Appeal No. 3328/2018, that an employee cannot be granted Grade Pay higher than what he may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy applies to the MACPS and governs the present case. In M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the endorsement of DoPT clarifications as integral to and binding under the Scheme further reinforces the Appellants' position.
(vi)The dismissal of SLP(C) No. 20906/2019 and connected matters on 07.11.2023 does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution. That order expressly reserved the question of law. The High Court erred in treating those dismissals as a binding determination of the correct legal position. (vii) The impugned order of the High Court, in following the Jodhpur Bench judgment in Laxman Lal Parihar on the basis of judicial discipline without independently examining the MACPS provisions, the Recruitment Rules, or the binding circulars, proceeded on an erroneous legal foundation. The conclusion reached by the Jodhpur Bench, followed by the Jaipur Bench, that Paragraph 5's illustration overrides Paragraph 8 for the Guard cadre, and that the Guard cadre movements are not promotions for MACP purposes, is incorrect and is, by this judgment, set aside.
66.In the light of the foregoing analysis and the conclusions recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 06.01.2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16939/2024 is set aside. The orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dated 11.07.2014 in O.A. No. 468/2011 and dated 11.07.2024 in O.A. No. 92/2015, to the extent they directed the grant of MACP financial upgradations at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Grade Pay Rs. 4800 to the Respondent, are set aside. The speaking order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Kota, rejecting the Respondent's MACP claim on the basis of Paragraph 8 of the MACPS and RBE No. 142/2012, is restored and confirmed.
67.No recovery of any MACP benefits already paid to the Respondent shall be made. The statement made before this Court on 01.12.2025 by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Appellants that no recovery in terms of the impugned order shall be effected from the Respondent is recorded and forms part of this order.
68.The decision of this Court, as set out in this judgment, shall operate in the following terms: all similarly situated Railway Guards across Indian Railways who have traversed the Guard cadre up to Mail/Express Guard and whose MACP claims at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800 were denied or withdrawn pursuant to RBE No. 76/2011, RBE No. 142/2012, or any administrative order consistent with this judgment, and who have not already received those benefits pursuant to individual orders that have attained finality and been implemented inter partes, shall have their MACP positions regulated in accordance with the law as declared in this judgment. Employees who have received MACP benefits pursuant to orders of a Tribunal or High Court that have attained finality between the parties concerned and have been implemented shall not be subjected to any recovery or revision on the basis of this judgment.
69.In view of our decision in Civil Appeal…./2026 @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025, Civil Appeal…../2026 @ SLP (C) Diary No.67055/2025 and Civil Appeal…../2026 @ SLP (C) No.11050 of 2026 are also allowed in the same terms.
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 in CWP No. 9803/2023 and judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15303/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench are set aside. The orders passed by the Competent Authority withdrawing/denying the MACP claims are restored and confirmed.
11.If the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others vs. Harbans Lal Verma (supra) is taken into consideration, the benefit of MACP cannot be extended to the applicant by ignoring the promotions earned by him in the Guard cadre. Since the applicant has already earned three promotions in the Guard cadre, the benefit of MACP cannot be granted to him by treating such promotions as irrelevant. Accordingly, the relief claimed by the applicant for restoration of the MACP benefit earlier granted to him cannot be allowed. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in the OA. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12.All associated MAs also stand disposed of.