AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (J))
In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"a)to set aside the order passed by the second respondent in No.ATI/CH/A-21020/01/2018/119 dated 18.05.2018 and the order passed by the first respondent in DGT A-11019/1/2017-TA-II dated 31.10.2018 and direct Respondents to grant 2nd ACP to the applicant in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500/- (pre-revised) with effect from 10.10.2008 along with all the consequential benefits.
b)Cost of this application.
c)And pass such further order or orders as this Tribunal deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The applicant entered into service as Vocational Instructor on 10.10.1983 and retired on superannuation on 31.08.2010. The applicant was granted first ACP in the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/- with effect from 09.08.1999 on completion of 12 years of service and was eligible for grant of 2nd ACP in the scale of pay of Rs. 8000-275-13500/- with effect from 10.10.2008 (24 years plus 1 year). However, instead of granting 2nd ACP, the applicant was granted MACP in place of ACP with effect from 01.09.2008. The applicant completed the required 25 years of service on 10.10.2008 and became eligible for grant of 2nd ACP. MACP was introduced by Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009. On the date the applicant became eligible for grant of 2nd ACP i.e. 10.10.2008, the MACP Scheme had not come into existence. Hence the applicant is eligible for grant of 2nd ACP in the scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500/- with effect from 10.10.2008. It is submitted that even though the MACP Scheme was introduced vide O.M. dated 19.05.2009, the same came into effect with effect from 01.09.2008. Prior to the introduction of MACP Scheme in O.M. dated 19.05.2009, the applicant has completed the required number of years of service (on 10.10.2008) for grant of 2nd ACP. The said view has been taken by the Madras Bench of this Tribunal and also by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. In view of the above, the applicant is entitled for 2nd ACP in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500/- with effect from 10.10.2008 with all consequential benefits. The applicant had given representations dated 06.09.2017 and 10.01.2018 seeking second ACP in the scale of pay of Rs. 8000-275-13500/-with effect from 10.10.2008. Aggrieved, the applicant filed O.A. No. 436 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Tribunal in its order dated 26.03.2018 with a direction to dispose of the applicant's representation. The respondents have rejected the representations of the applicant in their order dated 18.05.2018 and 31.10.2018. Hence the applicant has filed this OA seeking the above relief.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the issue is no more res integra and relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs S. Ranjit Samuel, in Civil Appeal No.1625-1627/2022, Order dated 24.03.2022.
When the same was put forth before the learned counsel for the applicant, he relied on the grounds raised and could not controvert the same.
We have heard both the parties, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
The issue which is raised in the present OA is “whether the employees, who had completed 24 years of regular service between 1st September, 2008 and 19th May, 2009 would be considered under the ACP Scheme or under the MACP Scheme”.
We find the issue is no more res integra and considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority in Civil Appeal No. 1880 of 2022, Order dated 08.03.2022 and also in the case of Union of India Vs S. Ranjit Samuel, in Civil Appeal No.1625-1627/2022, Order dated 24.03.2022, and the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
“14.In the present case, this Court is considering the question, as to whether the employees, who had completed 24 years of regular service between 1st September, 2008 and 19th May, 2009 would be considered under the ACP Scheme or under the MACP Scheme. This was also a question, which directly fell for consideration and decided by the three judge Bench of this Court in the case of Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority (supra).
15.In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed. It is, therefore, ordered that:
(i)The appeals are allowed.
(ii)The impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 14th February, 2017, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 33946, 34602 and 27798 of 2014 and the orders of the Tribunal dated 6th November, 2013, passed in O.A. No. 818 of 2011 and 26th February, 2014, passed in O.A. Nos. 1170 of 2012 and 437 of 2013 are quashed and set aside;
(iii)The Original Applications filed by the respondents employees herein are dismissed.
(iv)It is held and declared that the cases of the respondents’ employees/applicants before the Tribunal would be governed by the MACP Scheme.
(v)In case, the appellants have not finalized the cases of any of the respondent employees for their entitlement under the MACP Scheme, the same shall be considered in accordance with the MACP Scheme and the benefits be given to them within a period of three months from the date of this order.
16.Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
In the above circumstance and based the judgement cited supra we don’t find any interference is required in the impugned order. In the result the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.