Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
I A Nagendra Rao vs South Western Railway on 2 February, 2022
1
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00390/2020
ORDER RESERVED ON:08.12.2021
DATE OF ORDER: 02.02.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
(On video conference from Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
at Chandigarh)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
(On video conference from Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench
at Bangalore)
I.A. Nagendra Rao
S/o Late I.C. AnanthaSubbaraya
Aged about 64 years,
Rtd. Station Master,
R/o #304, Mahaveera Flora
Kommaghatta Road, Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru-560060. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri K. Shivakumar - through video conference)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by General Manager,
S.W. Railway,
Gadag Road,
Hubballi-580020.
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
Hubballi-580020. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Bhasker Reddy - through video conference)
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief: 2
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
a) To quash the Memorandum dated 16.8.2016 (Annexure A-2) vide which the 3rd MACP has been granted to the applicant w.e.f.
11.10.2013 and to order grant of 3rdMACP to the applicant from 1.9.2008 by restoring the order dated 11.10.2012 with all consequential benefits.
b) To refund the amount of Rs.1,86,558/- recovered from the applicant on account of alleged over payment.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant are as follows:
a) The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Station Master in Scale of Rs.330-560/1200-2040/4500-7000 on 16.04.1983 (GP Rs.2800). He was granted first promotion as Station Master Grade III in the Scale of Rs.425-640/1400-2300/5000-8000 in April 1986 (GP Rs.4200). He was further promoted as Station Master Grade II in the Scale of Rs.1600-
2660/5500-9000 in April 2001 (GP Rs.4200).Subsequent to implementation of the 6th Pay Commission both these pay scales were merged.
b) The promotion earned by the applicant inApril 2001 was ignored on account of merger of the pay scales after 6th Pay Commission, and he was granted 2nd/3rd MACP with effect from 01.9.2008/01.7.2009 due to postponement of Annual increment for 2 years from 01.7.2007.
c) Subsequently, the respondents issued another order dated 16.8.2016 vide which the respondents gave effect of 3rd MACP from 11.10.2013 instead of 01.9.2008. The pay of the applicant was duly revised downwards with a rider to recover the over payment involved. This memorandum was issued just about 45 days prior to the retirement of the applicant and Rs. 3
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench 1,86,558 was calculated as over payment. This was adjusted in the last month's salary and over time allowance payable to the applicant on the date of retirement.
d) Subsequent to superannuation on 30.9.2016, the applicant submitted representations on 14.10.2016, 03.03.2017, 01.12.2017, 05.04.2018, 30.03.2019 to Respondent No.2 for which no reply was received by him. Subsequently, on 27.6.2019 the applicant submitted a representation to Respondent No.1.
e) The applicant contends that he is eligible for 3rd MACP on 01.9.2008, since he did not get any promotion for 20 years from his first promotion in 1986.In OA No.170/00187/2016 filed by a similarly placed employee, this Tribunal had ruled, vide orders dated 21.07.2017, that the applicant in that case was entitled for 3rd MACP from 01.9.2008 on completion of 20 years of service from his first promotion. This was ordered on the basis of a similar Judgement passed by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal.
f) The order in OA No. 187/2016 of this Tribunal was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.47005/2017(S-CAT) and the same was dismissed by the High Court on 08.1.2018 duly upholding the orders of this Tribunal.
3. Subsequently, Mysore Division had implemented the orders of this Tribunal and extended the benefit of 3rd MACP from 01.9.2008 to the applicant in that O.A. The applicant is also similarly placed to that of his colleague of Mysore 4 OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench Division. He made representations to the respondents requesting to consider his prayer on the lines of the decision taken in the case of his colleague of Mysore Division. However, this has not been accorded to and his grievance has not been redressed.
4. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) Shri Nagendra Rao was appointed as Assistant Station Mater in Scale Rs.
330-560, which is equated in Grade Pay 2800/- on 16.4.1983. Subsequently, he was promoted as Station Master Gr.III in scale Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 29.5.1986 and as Station Master Gr.II in scale Rs.5500-9000 on 28.12.2001 which is equated in Grade Pay Rs.4200/-. Both these scales were merged into 4200 GP in 6th CPC.
b) Consequent on implementation of MACP Scheme, the applicant was granted 2nd/ 3rd Financial upgradation under MACP Scheme in 4600 GP/ 4800 GP w.e.f. 01.7.2009 (postponing from 01.7.2007 for 2 years in view of his punishment) vide Office Order No: T/20/2012 dated 11.10.2012.
c) 3rd Financial upgradation under MACP Scheme extended to the employee was withdrawn in terms of Provisions contained in RBE No.101/2009 dated 10.6.2009 read in conjunction with the clarification issued by Railway Board vide Ir No.PC-V/2009/ACP/2 dated 27.6.2014. It was clarified that:
i. 1st MACP is eligible on completion of 10 years of regular service.5
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench ii. 2nd MACP on completion of 10 years after 1st promotion or completion of 20 years regular service.
iii. 3rd MACP is eligible on completion of 10 years from the date of 2nd promotion/ MACP or 30 years from regular service whichever is earlier.
5. Keeping in view the Railway Board letter cited above, as there was an error in grant of 3rd Financial upgradation in 4800 GP w.e.f. 01.9.2008, this was accordingly withdrawn. The eligibility of the applicant for grant of 3rd Financial upgradation under MACP scheme worksout on 11.10.2013 on completion of 30 years of service from the date of appointment on regular basis (after duly postponing the Non qualifying service period as per extant rules). Consequent on the change in the date of grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme from 01.7.2009 to 11.10.2013 the overpayment involved was calculated and recovered.
6. In addition to the OA, MA.No.264/2020 has been filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of about 2 years and 7 months from the date of issue of the modified order, which has been challenged in the present Original Application.
7. In this MA, the applicant has pleaded that he had retired from service on 30.09.2016. He came to know in March 2019 that a Station Master of Mysore Division who is similarly placed to that of the applicant had approached this Tribunal in OA No: 170/00187/2016. He had been granted the relief vide orders of this Tribunal dated 21.07.2017, which stands confirmed by the 6 OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 08.01.2018. The Mysore Division implemented the order on 10.12.2018 and granted the benefit of 3rd MACP to the applicant in that case with effect from 01.9.2008.
8. The applicant has further pleaded that he had submitted representation on 30.03.2019 and 27.06.2019. However, these representations have not been decided by the respondents.The applicant has accordingly prayed for condonation of delay of about 2 years and 7 months in filing the present OA.
9. In their reply to MA No: 264/2020, respondent No.2 has filed objections to the MA and have averred as under:
a) The applicant had retired on superannuation with effect from 30.09.2016 and he has filed the present OA in the year 2020, after a lapse of 4 years.
The application therefore deserves to be dismissed on ground of delay alone. The respondents have submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled in many cases that stale claims cannot be gone into by this Tribunal.
b) The respondents have relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court case in UOI vs. MK Sarkar (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126in which the Apex Court has observed that issue of limitation or delay and latches has to be considered with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to date on which an order is passed in compliance with courts directions.
7
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
c) The applicant had retired from railway service 4 years back in the year 2016 and the present OA is filed in 2020. Hence the present MA as well as the OA needs to be dismissed.
10.Heard learned counsels for the parties. We have also gone through the pleading made by them, both in the OA as well as in the MA seeking condonation of delay.
11. The primary contention of the applicant is that he is entitled to 3rd MACP/financial upgradation after 20 years from the date of his 1st promotion/financial upgradation. A careful perusal of the MACP scheme reveals that it contains the following important provisions:
O.M. No.35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 2.10.2019
1. There shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years services, respectively, or 10 years of continuous service in the same Level in Pay Matrix, whichever is earlier.
2. The MACPS envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher level in the hierarchy of the Pay Matrix as given in PART A of Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. Thus, the level at the time of financial upgradation under the MACPS can, in certain cases where regular promotion is not between two successive Pay Levels, be lower than what is available at the time of regular promotion. In such cases, the higher level attached to the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the concerned cadre/organisation will be given only at the time of regular promotion.
3. The financial upgradations under the MACPS would be admissible up-to level 15 in the Pay Matrix, corresponding to the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG).
4.
i. Benefit of pay fixation available at the time of regular promotion shall also be allowed at the time of financial upgradation under the Scheme [as prescribed in Para 13 of CCS(Revised Pay Rules), 2016]. 8
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench ii. There shall, however, be no further fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion if it is in the same pay level as granted under MACPS. iii. However, at the time of actual promotion if it happens to be in a post carrying higher pay level than what is available under MACPS, then he shall be placed in the level to which he is promoted at a cell in the promoted level equal to the figure being drawn by him on account of MACP. If no such cell is available in the level to which promoted, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level. The employee may have an option to get this fixation done either on the date of promotion or w.e.f. the date of next increment as per the option to be exercised by him. ....
27. Illustrations A. (i) If a Government servant in Level 2 gets his first regular promotion in the Level 4 on completion of 8 years of service and then continues in the Level for further 10 years without any promotion then he would be eligible for 2nd financial upgradation under the MACPS in the Level 5 after completion of 18 years (8+10 years).
(ii) (a) In case he does not get any promotion thereafter, then he would get 3rd financial upgradation in the Level 6 on completion of further 10 years of service i.e. after 28 years (8+10+10).
(ii) (b) However, if he gets 2nd promotion after 5 years of further service to the grade say in the Level 7 [i.e. on completion of 23 years (8+10+5years)], then he would get 3rd financial upgradation in Level 8 after completion of 30 years.
(iii)(a) If he gets 2nd promotion before 20th year (say 19th year), then he gets 3rd MACP, at the end of 29th year, (i.e. 10 years from 2"d promotion) provided he does not get 3rd promotion.
(iii)(b) If he gets 2nd promotion after 20th year (say in 23rd year), and there is no 3rd promotion before 30 years, then he may be allowed 3rd MACP at the end of 30 years.
12.The above provisions clearly indicate that the Modified Assured Career Progress Scheme (MACP) is for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation in cases where an employee is stagnating in his present pay level for a period of 10 years or more. The Scheme involves grant of 3 financial upgradations in the interval of 10, 20 and 30 years continuous regular service. However, it is clearly specified that the financial upgradation under the scheme is 9 OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicable to a person only after he stagnates in the same grade pay for a period exceeding 10 years. For grant of the 3rd MACP benefit (MACP III), the requirement is that the person should have stagnated in the same grade pay for a period of 10 years after grant of 2nd financial upgradation/ 2nd promotion OR completed 30 years of service, whichever is earlier. There is no provision under the scheme for grant of 2nd financial upgradation under MACP II and 3rd financial upgradation under MACP III together, after stagnating for 20 years, from the grant of first promotion/MACP-I. As per the scheme, the employee has to stagnate for at least 10 years after grant of 2nd financial upgradation under MACP-II or should have completed 30 years of total service, whichever is earlier, before becoming eligible for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP -III. This is also clarified in the Illustrations cited para 27 - A(iii) b where it has been mentioned that"If he gets 2nd promotion after 20th year (say in 23rd year), and there is no 3rd promotion before 30 years, then he may be allowed 3rd MACP at the end of 30 years."
13.In the present case, the officer was initially granted both MACP-II as well as MACP-III together on the same day (1.9.2008), on the ground that he has already completed 20 years of service after grant of his first promotion in April 1986. This impliesthat there was grant of a notional second financial upgradation MACP-II after 10 years from the date of his first promotion. The facts of the case reveal that the applicant had been granted his first promotion in the year 1986 and hence he would have been eligible for MACP-II after stagnating for 10 years i.e., in the year 1996, provided that the MACP 10 OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench scheme was operational at that time. However, the MACP Scheme itself was implemented in the year 2008 and was not in operation in April 1996.
14.The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No.15572 of 2019, titled Union of India versus R.K. Sharma & Ors., vide its orders dated 28th April, 2021, has observed as follows:
...the benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Schemes are incentives and are not part of pay. The resolution dated 29.08.2008 is made effective from 01.09.2008 for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA, which includes financial upgradation under ACP & MACP Schemes.
Therefore, the Respondents and other similarly situated officers are not entitled to seek implementation of the benefits of MACPS w.e.f.
01.01.2006 according to the resolution dated 29.08.2008..
15. There is, therefore, no provision to have any retrospective implementation of these incentive schemes. Since MACP is to be implemented prospectively from 1.9.2008, hence there cannot be grant of any retrospective benefit in terms of grant of second upgradation under MACP-II to the applicant, even on notional basis, with effect from 1996. Hence, the applicant was not eligible to be granted MACP-II benefit on notional basis in 1996. He was eligible for grant of MACP-II benefit only from the date when the scheme actually came into operation i.e., from 01.9.2008. Subsequent to grant of MACP-II benefit w.e.f. 01.9.2008 i.e., the date when the scheme came into operation, he would become eligible for the grant of benefit for 3rd MACP (MACP-III) only after further stagnating for 10 years after getting MACP-II, OR after completion of 30 years of service whichever is earlier. 11
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
16.This issue regarding grant of MACP III along with MACP II after completing 20 years of service from the first promotion was examined by the Railways Department, and the following clarification was issued in this regard vide their letter dated 27.06.2014:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (Railway Board) No PC-V /2009/ACP/2 New Delhi, dated. 27.06.2014 The General Managers (P) All Indian Railways & Pus Sub: -Erroneous implementation of MACP Scheme on Railways.
It has been brought to the notice of Board's office through its Vigilance Dte. that on some of the Railways, 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme is being allowed on completion of 20 years of service from 1stpromotion considering deemed 2nd MACPS of the concerned employee well before 01/09/2008. As the MACP Scheme has come into effect from 01/09/2008 only such an assumption is blatantly flawed.
In this regard, attention is invited to Board's letter of even number dt.29.12.2011 whereby it has been categorically clarified that 3rd financial upgradation is admissible either on completion of 30 years service from the date of initial appointment OR further 10 years from the date of 2nd financial upgradation/promotion, whichever is earlier.
It is therefore emphasized that the instructions communicated vide Board's letter dt.29.12.2011 may please be strictly adhered to as any deviation there from may attract vigilance action. Further, necessary remedial action, wherever required, may please taken immediately.
Sd/-
Dy.Director, Pay Commission- V Railway Board Copy to:
1. FA&CAOs -All Indian Railways & PUs. 12
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
2. EDV(A), w.r.t his note No.2014/V4/WR/PNL/24, dt.29.05.2014
17. Keeping in view the observations/directions in the letter above, the error made by the Railway Department in granting the MACP II and MACP III together after twenty years from the date of first promotion granted to the applicant vide orders dated 11.10.2012 was rectified and he was granted MACP-III on 11.10.2013 after completion of thirty years of service vide orders dated 16.08.2016.
18.The applicant has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Tribunal in OA.No.187/2016 dated 21.7.2017. A perusal of this Judgment indicates that the Tribunal, in that case, had relied on the Judgment given by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No. 714/2012, 741/2012 and 774/2012 dated 18.11.2016. In the judgment dated 18.11.2016, the Chennai Bench of this tribunal had held as follows:
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents and perused the pleadings and other material on record. It is not in dispute that the applicant had joined as Assistant Station Master on different dates and promoted as Station Master Grade III in approximately two years time from the date of his entry into service. The exact date of his promotion as Station Master Grade III as indicated by the respondents was 31.7.86. As per para-28(a)(i) of the MACP Scheme, if the 1st regular promotion was granted before completion of 10 years of service, the subsequent upgradation shall be at the end of 10 years each from the date of such first promotion. In such cases, completion of 30 years of service would not be mandatory for grant of the third upgradation.
5. In view of the above, the applicant herein, having completed 20 years from the date of his first promotion before the introduction of the MACP Scheme on 1.09.2008, was automatically eligible for second and third financial upgradation w.e.f. 1.9.2008 itself. The impugned orders and show cause notices of the respondents based on an erroneous reading of the MACP Scheme and a mistaken notion that the 3rd financial upgradations could be granted only on completion of 30 years cannot be sustained.13
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
19.A perusal of the above judgment reveals that the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, relied upon the provisions indicated under Illustrations of the MACP Scheme, where it has been provided that if the first regular promotion is granted before completion of 10 years of service, the subsequent upgradation shall be at the end of 10 years each from the date of such first promotion. In such cases, completion of 30 years of service would not be mandatory for grant of 3rd MACP.
20. However, the illustrations given under MACP Scheme,themselves clearly indicate, that this is applicable only in cases where the second financial upgradation under MACP-II has been granted after 10 years from the date of first promotion. This is also clarified in the Illustrations cited para 27 - A(iii) b where it has been mentioned that"If he gets 2nd promotion after 20th year (say in 23rd year), and there is no 3rd promotion before 30 years, then he may be allowed 3rd MACP at the end of 30 years."
21.In the present case, the applicant was not eligible for MACP-II after 10 years from his first promotion in 1986, since the MACP scheme itself was not in existence in the year 1996. The Apex Court in case of Union of India versus R.K. Sharma & Ors., (supra),has clearly laid down that the MACP scheme would be applicable from 1.9.2008 only. There is no provision for retrospective application of the scheme to a period where the scheme itself is not in existence. Hence in the present case the applicant was eligible to be 14 OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench granted 2nd MACP with effect from the date the scheme came into existence. He has accordingly, rightly been granted 2nd MACP from 01.09.2008 (effective from 1.7.2009, since his annual increment had been withheld for two years w.e.f. 1.07.2007). He would, therefore, become eligible for consideration for grant of 3rd MACP, only after stagnating for a further period of 10 years after MACP -II,ORafter completing 30 years of service, whichever is earlier. There is no provision in the MACP scheme for grant of 3rd MACP after completion of 20 years of service from the date of first promotion.
22.In its judgment dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 8271/2014 titled Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, the Honourable Apex Court has observed as follows:-
29. The change in policy brought about by supersession of ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is after consideration of all the disparities and the representations of the employees. The Sixth Central Pay Commission is an expert body which has comprehensively examined all the issues and the representations as also the issue of stagnation and at the same time to promote efficiency in the functioning of the departments. MACP Scheme has been introduced on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission which has been accepted by the Government of India. After accepting the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the ACP Scheme was withdrawn and the same was superseded by the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. This is not some random exercise which is unilaterally done by the Government, rather, it is based on the opinion of the expert body - Sixth Central Pay Commission which has examined all the issues, various representations and disparities. Before making the recommendation for the Pay Scale/Revised Pay Scale, the Pay Commission takes into consideration the existing pay structure, the 15 OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench representations of the government servants and various other factors after which the recommendations are made. When the expert body like Pay Commission has comprehensively examined all the issues and representations and also took note of inter-departmental disparities owing to varying promotional hierarchies, the court should not interfere with the recommendations of the expert body. When the government has accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission and has also implemented those, any interference by the court would have a serious impact on the public exchequer.(emphasis added)
23.The above judgement by the Apex Court has clearly laid down the parameters for judicial review of issues which have been finalised by the Government based on recommendations of an expert body such as the Pay Commission. The MACP scheme formulated by the Government based on recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission has clearly laid down the parameters for granting of financial upgradation to employees facing stagnation. Under this scheme, there is no provision for simultaneous grant of MACP-II and MACP -III after 20 years from the grant of first promotion.
24.In the same case of Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Honourable Apex Court had further directed the UOI and DOP&T to consider various anomalies as pointed out in the Joint Committee meetings and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. It had directed as follows:
"53. However, as pointed out earlier in para Nos. (47), (48) and (49), since certain anomalies on implementation of the MACP Scheme have been brought to the notice of the Joint Committee in the various meetings of the Joint Committee, Union of India and DoP&T to consider the same as they deem it appropriate and take a decision in accordance with law."16
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
25. In compliance of these directions of Hon'ble Apex Court indicated above, the issues arising out of deliberations of the Joint Committee constituted to examine the MACP Scheme, and which were not finally disposed of, were examined by the DOPT in consultation with Department of Expenditure. The decisions taken on the issue, relevant to the case in hand, have been conveyed vide OM No: F.No.22034/4/2020-Estt.(D) dated 5th April, 2021. The issue regarding grant of 3rd MACP after 20 years of service from the date of first promotion has been examined in this OM, and the decision taken has been conveyed as under:
Item No.9: Employees who got one promotion or 1st ACP prior to 01.09.2008 and have completed over two decades of service without benefit of promotion may be granted third upgradation under the MACPS on 1.9.2008 (Para 12 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 27.07.2012).
Decision: As per the MACPS guidelines, there shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 0, 20 and 30 years of service respectively, or after 10 years of continuous service in the same Grade Pay or Pay Level in Pay Matrix, whichever is earlier. Thus, those employees who got either one promotion or 1st ACP before 1.1.2006 and who did not earn any promotion or 2nd ACP during 1.1.2006 to 31.8.2008, are eligible for 2nd MACP on or after 1.9.2008 (i.e. due on completion of 20 Years) and 3rd MACP after 30 years of service or 10 years in the same Grade Pay/Pay Level, as the case may be, if found otherwise eligible. Hence, there is no ground for grant of 3rd MACP straight away on 1.9.2008, without the employee earning 2nd MACP, as per provisions of the MACPS.Therefore, the request of the Staff Side cannot be acceded to and the item is treated as closed. (emphasis added)
26. As can be seen from the OM quoted above, the issue had been examined by the Government, in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court, and it has been clarified/reiterated that there is no provision under MACP scheme to grant MACP -III along with MACP - II in cases where the employees have 17 OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench completed twenty years of service after getting their first promotion prior to 1.9.2008.
27.Keeping the above points in view, there is no merit in the OA filed by the applicant seeking grant of 3rd MACP along with the 2nd MACP from 01.09.2008 with consequential benefits, and the same deserves to be dismissed.
28.The applicant, vide his MA No: 264/2020, has also prayed for condonation of delay of around 2 years and 7 months from the date of issuance of the modified order dated 16.08.2016. The only ground in the MA for condonation of delay is that he came to know about the case of a Station Master at Mysore Division, who has been granted a similar relief on 10.12.2018 based on Court Orders in OA.No.187/2016 dated 21.7.2017 passed by this Tribunal.
29.The respondents have objected to the grant of condonation of delay in this case relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. MK Sarkar (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126,where it has been ruled that the issue of limitation or delay and latches has to be considered with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with Court directions.
30.Keeping the above in view, we find no justifiable reason for condonation of delay in filing the present OA. Hence the prayer made in the MA seeking condonation of delay in filing the present OA also deserves to be dismissed. 18
OA.No.170/390/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
31.There is, therefore, no merit in the OA, as well as in the MA seeking condonation of delay, filed by the applicant and both deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA, as well as the MA seeking condonation of delay, are dismissed.
32.However, there shall no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (SURESH KUMAR MONGA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/