Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ashish Kumar Awasthi vs Financial Services on 19 February, 2026
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
Original Application No.1062/2025
This the 19th Day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
1. Ashish Kumar Awasthi, aged ab out 50 years, S/o Late R.N. Awasthi,
presently posted as Inspector Range-XI, CGST Division-II, Kanpur R/o
40/1, Site No.2, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur 208011.
2. Manoj Kumar Srivastava age about 58 years, S/o Late A.P. Srivastava.
Presently posted as Inspector CGST Range-VIII, Division-II, Kanpur R/o-
C-369, Panki, Kanpur 208020.
3. Mohd. Yawar Khan age about 55 years S/o Late Khalil Ahmad Khan,
presently posted as Inspector, CGST Range-I, Division-I Kanpur,R/o
116/80, Sayied Nagar, Rawatpur Gaon, Kanpur Nagar 208019.
4. Rajive Kumar Srivastava age about 59 years S/o late Virendra Kumar
Srivastava presently posted as Inspector, CGST Range-XV Division-III,
Kanpur R/o Flat No.D-307, Ratan Orbit Apartment, Indira Nagar,
Kanpur 208026.
........... Applicants
By Advocates: Shri Jaswant Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, through its Chairman,
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner, (Cadre Controlling Authority), Central
Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, 7-A, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
4. The Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Commissionerate, GST Bhawan,
117/07 Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur 208005.
5. The Pr. C.C. of Accounts, CBIC 1st Floor, DGACR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi.
6. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and
Central Excise, Commissionerate Kanpur/Lucknow.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
2
7. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
........... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):-
"a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the promotion given to the applicants w.e.f. 06-12-2002 by the respondent themselves in terms of various directions issued earlier or in compliance of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated 02-03-2005 in WP No. 7963/2004 which has been protected by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 1970-
75/2009 under Para no. 119(22) by the order dated 05.02.2020, now attained finality and cannot be disturbed in any manner and applicants is also eligible for all consequential benefit.
b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the applicants have not hit by the provision of the MACP Scheme referred to in the impugned letter/order dated 07.02.2018 & 14.07.2021 issued by the CBIC which have already been quashed and set aside in the Original Application Nos. 1085/2018, 691/2023, 143/2024, 717/20248 937/2024 by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the applicants are also eligible for grant of Non Functional Upgradation (NFG) of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 06-12-2016 after completion of 4 years regular service in grade pay of Rs.4800/- as they were already awarded the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- w.e.f. 06-12-2012 being identical case of M. Subramaniam vs UOI and others.
d) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondents no. 04 & 06 to release all the outstanding dues to the applicants herein without any further delay.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3
e) To direct the Respondents to pay simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the outstanding amount held back by the respondents unilaterally without any valid reason from the date of due the payable of outstanding amount until the date of actual payment."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the grievance of the applicants is that despite their promotion to the post of Inspector having been granted on regular basis w.e.f. 06.12.2002 pursuant to judicial directions and the said promotion having been expressly protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Raghu v. R. Basaveswarudu, the respondents have arbitrarily refused to grant and/or restore the consequential service benefits flowing therefrom. The applicants were treated as regular Inspectors from 06.12.2002, their pay was fixed accordingly and they were granted 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in Grade Pay ₹4800/- w.e.f. 06.12.2012 after completing ten years of continuous regular service. Upon further completion of four years in Grade Pay ₹4800/-, they became entitled to Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) in Grade Pay ₹5400/- w.e.f. 06.12.2016. However, the respondents have withheld these benefits by disputing the reckoning of service from 06.12.2002, contrary to binding judicial pronouncements and despite this Tribunal having already granted identical relief to similarly situated employees in O.A. No. 717/2024 and connected matters. The applicants are thus aggrieved by the denial of MACP and NFSG benefits, discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly placed officers and the arbitrary refusal to extend consequential financial and service benefits, which has compelled them to file the present Original Application seeking enforcement of their lawful entitlements.
4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants in support of his case are as under:-
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 4.1 The applicants were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks and thereafter promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk, which was the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Inspector under the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979.
4.2 During Cadre Restructuring-2001, large-scale promotions were made to the post of Superintendent, resulting in substantial vacancies in the cadre of Inspector prior to 07.12.2002. Litigation ensued regarding the manner in which such resultant vacancies were to be filled, culminating in the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP No. 7963/2004, wherein it was directed that vacancies which arose prior to 07.12.2002 be filled in accordance with the 1979 Rules.
4.3 The Ministry of Finance accepted the said judgment, issued implementation instructions and called for vacancy position from all Cadre Controlling Authorities. Pursuant thereto, Review DPCs were convened in 2011-2012 and the applicants were promoted to the post of Inspector on regular basis w.e.f. 06.12.2002 against regular vacancies.
4.4 The promotion orders specifically recorded that the promotions were made against regular vacancies and were subject only to the final outcome of pending proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Their pay was fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(i) in the applicable pay scale by treating them as regularly promoted from 06.12.2002, thereby recognizing continuous regular service from that date.
4.5 The challenge to the High Court judgment ultimately culminated in the decision of the Apex Court in D. Raghu v. R. Basaveswarudu. While the Apex Court did not affirm the reasoning of SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 the High Court, it categorically protected the promotions already granted in respect of vacancies that arose prior to 07.12.2002 and had been filled pursuant to the High Court judgment. In paragraph 119(22), the Apex Court specifically declined to disturb such promotions, taking into account the long passage of time, the fact that vacancies had already been filled and that further promotions had also been effected on that basis. Thus, the promotions of the applicants stood judicially protected and attained finality. After the said judgment, the respondents continued to treat the applicants as regular Inspectors for all purposes, including seniority, pay fixation, and further promotional avenues.
4.6 On the strength of such regular promotion w.e.f. 06.12.2002, the applicants completed ten years of continuous regular service in Grade Pay ₹4600/- on 06.12.2012. In terms of DoP&T O.M. dated 19.05.2009 governing the MACP Scheme, financial upgradation is admissible upon completion of ten years of continuous regular service in the same Grade Pay. After due verification of service records and consideration by the Departmental Screening Committee, the applicants were granted 3rd financial upgradation under MACP in Grade Pay ₹4800/- w.e.f. 06.12.2012. The benefit was granted through formal establishment orders issued by the competent authority and was acted upon, pay was fixed accordingly and the applicants continued to draw salary in the upgraded Grade Pay without any objection from the respondents for several years.
4.7 Thereafter, upon completion of four years of regular service in Grade Pay ₹4800/-, i.e., on 06.12.2016, the applicants became entitled to Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) in Grade Pay ₹5400/- in PB-2 in accordance with settled service jurisprudence and consistent judicial interpretation. The entitlement flows consequentially from the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 valid grant of Grade Pay ₹4800/- and completion of the prescribed residency period.
4.8 The applicants' claim is thus not based on any fresh or independent cause but is a natural and automatic progression of service benefits flowing from the regular promotion w.e.f. 06.12.2002 and the valid grant of MACP w.e.f. 06.12.2012.
4.9 However, relying upon subsequent clarificatory letters dated 07.02.2018 and 14.07.2021, the respondents have sought to deny and/or withhold the MACP benefit and consequential NFSG by contending that the applicants' service from 06.12.2002 cannot be treated as "regular service" for the purposes of MACP. This stand is wholly contrary to the express terms of the promotion orders, the pay fixation already granted, and the judicial protection extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents, having themselves treated the applicants as regularly promoted from 06.12.2002 for all purposes, cannot now take a contradictory position to the prejudice of the applicants.
4.10 Further, the very clarifications dated 07.02.2018 and 14.07.2021, on the basis of which the respondents are attempting to deny the benefits, have already been quashed by this Tribunal in multiple Original Applications, including O.A. No. 717/2024 and connected matters. In those cases, which involved identically situated Inspectors promoted under the same Review DPC and protected by the same Supreme Court judgment, this Tribunal categorically held that the period of service reckoned from 06.12.2002 is to be treated as regular service for the purposes of MACP and directed restoration of Grade Pay ₹4800/- and consequential benefits including NFSG in Grade Pay ₹5400/-. Despite the existence of such binding and coordinate SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 Bench decisions, the respondents have failed to extend the same relief to the present applicants, thereby subjecting them to hostile discrimination and unequal treatment.
4.11 The applicants have neither committed any fraud nor misrepresented any material fact. Their promotions were granted strictly in compliance with judicial directions and accepted by the Government itself. The pay fixation and MACP benefits were granted after due scrutiny by competent authorities. The applicants have been functioning as regular Inspectors for more than a decade, their seniority has crystallized, and further promotions in the cadre have been made on that basis. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that long- standing promotions, seniority, and financial benefits cannot be unsettled after an inordinate delay, particularly when the employee is not at fault. The respondents are estopped from withdrawing or withholding consequential benefits after having allowed the applicants to continue on the basis of regular promotion and upgraded pay for several years.
4.12 The impugned action is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It has been taken without affording any opportunity of hearing and in disregard of binding judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal. The applicants have acquired a vested right and legitimate expectation that their service from 06.12.2002 would be reckoned as regular service for all consequential purposes including MACP and NFSG. The continued refusal of the respondents to grant and restore these benefits, despite identical relief having been granted to similarly situated officers, is unsustainable in law. The applicants, therefore, have been compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking enforcement of their lawful and SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 consequential service entitlements in accordance with settled legal principles.
5. It is also pertinent to note that despite repeated opportunities granted by this Tribunal on 17.10.2025, 26.11.2025 and 23.01.2026, the respondents have not filed their Counter Affidavit. However, learned counsel for the respondents advanced oral submissions opposing the reliefs sought. It is contended that the promotion of applicants w.e.f. 06.12.2002, though granted pursuant to Review DPC proceedings, was notional in nature and subject to judicial outcomes and therefore such notional period cannot be treated as "regular service" for the purpose of financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.
5.1 Further, the clarifications dated 07.02.2018 and 14.07.2021 issued by CBIC/DoP&T merely reiterate the settled position that regular service for MACP purposes is to be reckoned from the actual date of assumption of charge and not from a notional date, and thus cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal.
5.2 The revision of seniority and consequential re-fixation of pay were carried out in accordance with applicable rules and administrative instructions and the recoveries effected were based on audit objections regarding excess payments; hence, no violation of principles of natural justice or Article 311(2) of the Constitution is made out. The respondents also deny the claim for grant of NFSG in Grade Pay ₹5400/- w.e.f. 06.12.2016, contending that the applicants had not completed four years of regular service in Grade Pay ₹4800/- reckoned from the actual date of assumption of charge and, therefore, were not eligible for the said benefit. It is lastly submitted that the revision of pensionary benefits, if any, was a consequential outcome of re-fixation of pay and does not suffer from any illegality.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9
6. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the pleadings on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants.
7. It is not in dispute that the applicants were promoted to the post of Inspector pursuant to the recommendations of the Review DPC and the promotion orders specifically granted them promotion on regular basis w.e.f. 06.12.2002 against vacancies which had arisen prior to 07.12.2002. Their pay was fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(i) and they were treated as regular Inspectors for all service purposes. The only stipulation in the promotion order was that the same would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The controversy before us is whether the period of service reckoned from 06.12.2002, though initially granted notionally pursuant to Review DPC proceedings, can be treated as "regular service" for the purposes of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. It is pertinent to clarify that the 3rd MACP was granted to the applicants w.e.f. 06.12.2012 after completion of ten years of service in the Grade Pay of ₹4600/-, and not from 06.12.2002. The subsequent action of the respondents seeks to exclude the notional period from reckoning regular service, thereby revising the MACP and consequential benefits.
9. The Apex Court in D. Raghu v. R. Basaveswarudu (supra) has categorically protected the promotions granted against vacancies which arose prior to 07.12.2002. Once the Apex Court declined to disturb such promotions, the legal consequence is that the status of the applicants as regular Inspectors from 06.12.2002 stands affirmed and SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 cannot be reopened indirectly through administrative actions. The respondents, having implemented the promotion and fixed pay accordingly, cannot now treat the same as irregular or non est for the limited purpose of denying MACP benefits.
10. The expression "regular service" occurring in para 9 of the MACP Scheme has to be interpreted in contradistinction to ad hoc, stop-gap or purely temporary service. It does not mean that only the period after physical assumption of charge can be counted if the promotion itself has been granted on regular basis pursuant to due process. The notional aspect of promotion pertains to monetary benefits, but the status conferred is that of a regular appointment. To exclude such period altogether would amount to negating the very promotion granted and protected judicially.
11. The respondents' reliance upon clarifications dated 07.02.2018 and 14.07.2021 cannot override the binding judicial pronouncements. It is also a matter of record that similar clarifications have already been set aside by this Tribunal in earlier matters involving identically situated officers. Administrative instructions cannot defeat the effect of a judgment of the Apex Court nor can they curtail vested service rights accrued over a decade.
12. We further find that the present controversy, in so far as withdrawal of 3rd MACP on the ground of notional promotion is concerned, is squarely covered by a catena of decisions rendered by this Tribunal on the identical issue. This Tribunal has consistently held that withdrawal of MACP benefits merely on the ground that the promotion was granted notionally pursuant to Review DPC is legally unsustainable. Reference may be made to O.A. No.1085/2018 (Ashwani Kumar Dubey vs. Union of India & Ors.), O.A. No.691/2023 SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11 (Manoj Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors.) and O.A. No.143/2024 (Suman Lata Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors.), wherein similar action of the respondents withdrawing the 3rd MACP was set aside and the benefits were directed to be restored. The aforesaid orders passed by this Tribunal were assailed by the respondents before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad by filing Writ-A No.2491/2025, Writ-A No.2513/2025 and Writ-A No.15799/2025. The High Court, vide common judgment dated 27.11.2025, dismissed all the said writ petitions and affirmed the view taken by this Tribunal. Thus, the legal position on the issue has attained finality and the respondents cannot be permitted to take a contrary stand in the present case.
13. In so far as the grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) in Grade Pay ₹5400/- is concerned, the short question for determination is whether the applicants, having completed four years of regular service in Grade Pay ₹4800/- w.e.f. 06.12.2012, are entitled to be placed in Grade Pay ₹5400/- w.e.f. 06.12.2016.
14. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India, which stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The principle laid down therein has been consistently followed by various Benches of this Tribunal. At this stage, reference may also be made to the order dated 24.05.2024 passed in O.A. No. 558/2024, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench, applying the aforesaid binding precedent, directed grant of Grade Pay ₹5400/- upon completion of four years in Grade Pay ₹4800/-. The said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case.. The relevant extract of the order dated 24.05.2024 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
6. The short question involved in this case is that whether the applicant, who has completed four years' service in the Grade Pay of Rs.
4800/- are entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- or not?
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 12
7. Since the issue, in hand, has already attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such there is no necessity to give time to the respondents to file their response/Counter Reply by keeping the O.A. pending for long. We may also observe that the judgment passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam, which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is not a judgment in 'personam' but a judgment 'in rem'. We have also carefully perused the judgments as annexed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the O.A. As such, a prayer has been made that the instant O.A. be also disposed of in the light of the directions given by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra), which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. It is absolutely evident from the facts on record that the applicant has got the benefit of financial upgradations after rendering 10 years of regular service so much so that he is absolutely eligible to be granted the benefit of Non Functional Grade (NFG) by placing him in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- due to the fact that he has also completed four years of regular service in the grade pay Rs. 4800/- w.e.f. from the dates as has been already recorded in paragraph 3.2. of this judgment. Furthermore, in the instant case, applicant is in service and accordingly he is entitled to be granted the benefit of NFG.
9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, O.A. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed at the admission stage itself. The competent authority amongst the Respondents must ensure that the benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramaniam, which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court, be also given to the applicant. Accordingly, they are directed to re-fix the pay of the applicant in the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs. 9300- 34800 in Pay Band - II, with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- with all consequential benefits, with effect from the dates that he had completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. All the consequential benefits shall also accrue. The aforesaid exercise must be carried out by the respondents within a period of five months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
15. Similar matter also came for consideration before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 180/00161/2019 - A.S Peethambaran Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the aforesaid OA was also allowed vide order dated 21.03.2022 following the judgment dated 06.09.2010 in WP (C) No. 13225/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M. Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors. Although the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Union of India in OP (CAT) NO. 109 OF 2023 before Hon' High Court of Kerala, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.09.2023. Thereafter, the Union of India filed SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).12304/2024 which was also dismissed on 13-05-2024.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 13
16. It is undisputed that the applicants were granted Grade Pay ₹4800/- w.e.f. 06.12.2012. Upon completion of four years in that Grade Pay, they became eligible for placement in Grade Pay ₹5400/- in PB-
2. The respondents have not demonstrated that the applicants failed to complete the requisite residency period or that any disciplinary or other legal bar exists. The denial is solely based on exclusion of the period from 06.12.2002 to the date of actual assumption, which we have already held cannot be excluded for the purposes of reckoning regular service.
17. The plea of audit objection or excess payment also does not sustain in the absence of any finding of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicants. The benefits were granted after due consideration by competent authority. Long-standing service benefits cannot be unsettled after inordinate delay, particularly when the employees have acted bona fide.
18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in revising/withholding the 3rd MACP granted w.e.f. 06.12.2012 and in denying consequential NFSG in Grade Pay ₹5400/- w.e.f. 06.12.2016 is unsustainable in law.
19. Accordingly, the impugned actions based on letters dated 07.02.2018 and 14.07.2021, in so far as they relate to the present applicants, are set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the 3rd MACP granted to the applicants w.e.f. 06.12.2012 and to grant them the benefit of NFSG in Grade Pay ₹5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 06.12.2016 with all consequential benefits including re-fixation of pay and revision of pensionary benefits, if applicable.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 14
20. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
21. In so far as the claim of interest at the rate of 18% per annum is concerned, we are of the view that though the applicants are entitled to consequential monetary benefits, the claim of interest at such a high rate is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, if the respondents fail to comply with the directions within the stipulated period, the outstanding dues shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of expiry of the compliance period till actual payment.
22. The Original Application stands allowed in the above terms. No orders as to cost.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA