Ram Gopal Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors

Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

This OA, under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 is filed seeking relief to direct the respondents to extend the similar financial benefit of MACP scheme since the very date as has been given to his junior i.e. respondent No. 5, and to direct the respondents to give the arrears of the financial benefit of MACP scheme, and any other relief and cost.

The fact of the applicant is that he belongs to weaker section i.e. Scheduled Caste, appointed through Railway Recruitment Board as a Section Engineer on 19.11.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 2000 – 3200. On the basis of his seniority, applicant was promoted as Senior Section Engineer (Works) in the pay scale of Rs. 7450 – 11500 w.e.f. 01.09.1995. As per the seniority list published on 08.02.2013 in which the applicant stands at Sl. No. 1 in the category of Senior Section Engineer (Works). As there is no avenue of promotion in Group „C‟ cadre after the pay scale of Rs. 7450 – 11500 and as such a direction was issued to respondent No. 1 on 10.06.2009 to give the financial benefit of MACP scheme to the staff working / retired in engineering department. Accordingly, financial benefit was given to all the juniors of the applicant vide order dated 29.11.2011 but the applicant has been deprived of the same. Applicant made representation on 15.12.2011 to respondent No. 3 pointing out the discrimination and requested him to extend the financial benefit of MACP scheme as has been given to his junior i.e. respondent No. 5. As he did not get any response, he sent a reminder on 14.03.2012 once again pointed out the discrimination made against him, but respondents have turned their deaf ear. As his juniors have been given financial benefit of MACP scheme, he should also get the same benefit as he is eligible. Hence, as per eligibility as well as on the ground of equity, he deserves to be given the MACP scheme.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In their counter affidavit dated 24.07.2014, at para 4 they concede that as per RBE No. 101/2009 the applicant is entitled for MACP scheme for financial up-gradation after completing 10 years qualifying service. First MACP in GP Rs. 4800/- has already been given and thereafter completing twenty years total qualifying service he is entitled for second MACP in GP Rs. 5400/-. But applicant has not been given the benefit of MACP scheme due to pending vigilance inquiry at Hajipur in view of the submission of false caste certificate of Scheduled Caste. They further say that as Disciplinary Authority has issued a major penalty charge sheet to the applicant, hence, only after conclusion of the said inquiry his case for MACP can be considered. They further contend that the applicant has filed OA No. 1149/2011 before this Tribunal for quashing the inquiry proceedings. As this Tribunal after hearing the matter at interim stage passed an order dated 01.08.2012 and directed the respondents that the applicant may be allowed to continue in service till the next day of hearing. In compliance of the order dated 01.08.2012 of this Tribunal, the applicant is continued in service.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on 07.10.2014 where the applicant has repeated his contention as stated in the OA.

Case came up for hearing on 03.01.2023. Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents were present and heard.

The applicant emphasized that he is going to superannuate on 31.01.2023, hence, the case should be expedited and there was a Misc. Application 1964/2022 for urgency. Considering the same the case was heard at length on 16.01.2023 on which date Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. The applicant filed order dated 15.02.2022 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1149/2011, which was referred by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Operative portion of the said order reads:-

“On this simple ground the present disciplinary proceedings against the applicant do not hold and are quashed ab-initio. The article of charges dated 27.08.2002 issued to the applicant stand quashed and as a logical corollary the subsequent enquiry and the order of penalty imposed upon the applicant too stand quashed. The applicant shall be deemed to have been in uninterrupted service without any stigma.”

The respondents have not mentioned that this order has been challenged further and if anything still subsists in the form of disciplinary inquiry against the applicant. Hence, the only contention raised which was coming in the way of granting him the benefit of MACP scheme as to his junior has already been removed by the order dated 15.02.2022 of this Tribunal. Hence, we pass following orders:-

“OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the similar financial benefit of MACP scheme from the very date as has been given to his junior and all other consequential benefit, if any, after verifying the eligibility of the applicant, within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.”