Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
R Chandramohanadas vs The Secretary Department Of Personnel ... on 13 June, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00363/2019
Friday, this the 13th day of June, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
R.Chandramohanadas, S/o.Late Raghavan Nair
Aged 67 years, Superintendent of Central Excise (Retd)
Ushas, Kallara South PO., Kottayam District - 686 611
- Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair]
Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary
Department of Personnel &b Training
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs
Central Revenue Building, I.S.Press Road
Cochin - 682 018
3. Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs
Cochin Commissionerate, Central Revenue Building, I.S.Press Road
Cochin - 682 018
4. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Excise
Central Revenue Building, I.S.Press Road
Cochin - 682 018
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr.M.K.Padmanabhan Nair, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 16.05.2025, the Tribunal on
13.06.2025 delivered the following order:
DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30'
O.A.No.363/2019 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Superintendent of Central Excise, who retired from service on 30.04.2012. He had commenced service in the Central Excise Department on 23.06.1975 as Stenographer. Later, he was promoted as Inspector on 29.09.1980, then as Superintendent on 29.08.1997. The grievance of the applicant is that, even though he was granted grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in line with the Government Resolution No.G.I.M.F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008, on completion of 30 years of service he should have been granted 3 rd MACP and on that basis his grade pay should have been at Rs.6,600/-, which was not given. So, he gave Annexure-A7 representation which has not been considered. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for a declaration that he is entitled for the 3 rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme with the grade pay of Rs.6,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006, to direct the respondents to grant the same and to disburse arrears including leave encashment with interest at 12% per annum.
2. According to the applicant, he had come to the grade pay of Rs.4,800/- in the scale of Rs.9300-34800. On completion of 4 years in DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 3 that scale, in tune with the Annexure-A2 communication dated 21.11.2008, he was granted higher grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. He retired with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. However, on completion of 30 years of service, in terms of the MACP guidelines, Annexure-A3, he was not granted higher grade pay of Rs.6,600/-. According to him, that is against judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Annexure-A4, in Civil Appeal No.3744/2016 etc., where the Supreme Court had held that similarly placed employees are entitled to get 3 rd MACP. Referring to Annexures- A5, A6 and A8 it is submitted that similar reliefs have to be granted. In Annexure-A8, basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, similar reliefs have been granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, denying him grade pay of Rs.6,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled position of law.
3. Respondents have contested the O.A. According to them, such reliefs cannot be granted in line with the Annexure-R1 O.M., the clarifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, Annexures-R2 and R3, common order of this Tribunal in O.A.123/2017 and connected cases dated 19.06.2018 etc. According to the respondents, applicant had already secured three financial upgradations including one non-
DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 4 functional upgradation, so that he is not entitled to get the 3 rd MACP and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. We heard Sri.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri.M.K.Padmanabhan Nair, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel has also produced a copy of order of the Hon'ble High Court in OP(CAT) No.157/2019. We have perused the documents made available.
5. It is the admitted case that the applicant had started his career as Stenographer in the respondent department on 23.06.1975, later he was promoted as Inspector on 29.09.1980 and then as Superintendent on 29.08.1997 and retired from service on 30.04.2012. It is also the admitted case that when he was promoted as Superintendent with grade pay of Rs.4,800/-, after completion of four years, as stipulated in the O.M. referred in the O.A. he was granted grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. There is no dispute on these facts. Now the applicant submits that he has not been granted the 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service, if that was granted, he would have obtained higher grade pay of Rs.6,600/- from 01.1.2006, in tune with Annexure-A3 MACP DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 5 scheme. According to him, denial of that benefit has caused him substantial monetary loss.
6. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the applicant has already received two promotions, one from the post of Stenographer as Inspector and then as Superintendent of Central Excise and then one non-functional upgradation from grade pay of Rs.4,800/- to Rs.5,400/-, so that he is not entitled to get the benefit of the 3 rd MACP and the claim has no basis.
7. After evaluating the materials produced by both sides, we have no doubt that the applicant is bound to fail. Firstly, clause-8 of Annexure-I of Annexure-A3, the MACP scheme, read thus:
"8. Promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose of MACPs.
8.1 Consequent upon the implementation of Sixth CPC's recommendations, grade pay of Rs.5400 is now in two pay bands viz., PB-2 and PB-3. The grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of upgradations under MACP Scheme."
8. The learned Standing Counsel has sought our attention to DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 6 Annexure-R2 FAQ and submitted that specific clarification was sought whether non-functional scale of Rs.8000-13500 (revised to grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in PB-3) would be viewed as one financial upgradation for the purpose of MACPs. The answer was in the affirmative, in terms of paragraph 8.1 of Annexure-A3 MACP scheme dated 19.05.2009.
9. This has been further clarified by the respondents either by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions or by the Department of Revenue in more than one way. In Annexure-R2, the Ministry of Finance has made a clarification on MACP, grant of 3 rd MACP to the Superintendents in CBEC who were granted non-functional grade pay of Rs.5400/- in Pay Band-2. In answer, the Ministry clarified thus:
"I am directed to say that the Board is in receipt of various references/representations from field offices/officers seeking clarifications on the issue of grant of 3 rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme to Superintendents who were granted non-functional grade pay of Rs.5400/- in Pay Band-2.
2. The matter regarding counting of non-functional Grade pay of Rs.5400/- in Pay Band-2 to the Superintendents as one financial upgradation for the purpose of MACP Scheme has been re-examined in consultation with Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T). DoP&T has now advised in DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 7 consultation with Department of Expenditure that the grant of non-functional grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 to the Superintendents needs to be counted as one financial upgradation for the purpose of MACP Scheme. DoP&T has drawn attention to the specific provision in Para 8.1 of Annexure-I of OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19 th May 2009 read with FAQ No.16 (copy enclosed) which indicate that the Non-functional scale in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 is to be treated as a financial upgradation under MACP Scheme......"
In fact this clarification, in unambiguous terms, clinches the issue.
10. The applicant had placed reliance on Annexure-A8 judgment rendered by this Tribunal on 15.11.2018. However, in Annexure-R4 order dated 19.06.2018 of this Tribunal an opposite view was taken. That means, this Tribunal has taken contradictory views in the orders and that cannot help the parties.
11. It is evident that the applicant has built up his case on Annexure-A4 judgment of the Apex Court and subsequent orders passed by the Madras High Court or this Tribunal based on Annexure-A4. But Annexure-A4 judgment has already been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is evident from Union of India and others v. N.M.Raut and others [2025 (1) SLJ 120]. In that case, the Supreme DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 8 Court was considering the non-implementation of CCS(RP) Rules of some of the respondents who were working as Pharmacists in the Ordnance Factory and Superintendents in the Central Board of Excise, who were granted non-functional upgradations on completion of two or four years of service respectively, in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4,200/- and PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/- respectively. Their earlier pay scales before the grant of non-functional upgradations were with grade pay of Rs.2,800/-and Rs.4,800/- respectively. In other words, the case similar to that of the applicant was considered by the Apex Court. After evaluating the scheme of MACPs and earlier authorities, the Court held that Annexure-A4 judgment has already been overruled; it is held that such a financial upgradation granted from Rs.4800/- to Rs.5400/-, non- functional upgradation cannot be ignored for the purpose of granting benefit under the MACP. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in N.M.Raut thus:
"20. ...........To ignore the financial upgradation granted on completion of two or four years of service as Pharmacists or Superintendents, would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the scheme, the language employed as well as the examples/illustrations which have been given. No doubt, certain anomalies may DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 9 arise because of the fact that the ACPs and MACPs did operate during different periods; the nature of financial upgradations was different; and the time periods specified for financial upgradations were different, but this cannot be a ground and reason to re-write or ignore the expressed language of the MACPs and the intend and purpose behind the scheme. Read in this light, we have no difficulty in accepting the present appeal and setting aside the impugned judgments. Hence, we allow the present appeals.
21. In other words, the respondents would be entitled to the benefits of the MACPs only after taking into consideration all the financial upgradations earned by them, in terms of the CCS(RP) Rules. Financial upgradations under the said Rules have to be accounted for and will be treated as financial upgradations earned for the purpose of reckoning the 10 year intervals and the three assured financial upgradations, in terms of Grade Pay, under the MACPs."
12. This judgment in N.M.Raut, quoted supra, is the last straw that broke the camel's back. In other words, the applicant has no legs to stand upon.
DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30' O.A.No.363/2019 10
13. It is true that, earlier, based on Annexure-A4 judgment of the Apex Court numerous decisions like Annexures-A6 and A8 were rendered. Now, it is clear that Annexure-A4 is no more good law.
Resultantly, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 13th June, 2025)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30'
O.A.No.363/2019 11
List of Annexures
Annexure-A1: True copy of the PPO No.514081200249
Annexure-A2: True copy of the Letter F.No.26017/98/2008-Ad.IIA
dated 21.11.2008 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs Annexure-A3: True copy of the OM No.35034/3/2008 Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009 issued by the 1st respondent Annexure-A4: True copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 3744/16 Annexure-A5: True copy of the Order No.14(1) 99-D(AG) dated 25.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Defence Annexure-A6: True copy of the judgment in Writ Petition No.1763/ 2013 dated 15.10.2018 Annexure-A7: True copy of the representation dated 22.03.2019 Annexure-A8: True copy of the Order dated 15.11.2018 in OA No.68/2015 Annexure-R1: True copy of DOP&T's OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 09.09.2010 Annexure-R2: True copy of FAQ issued by DOP&T vide F.No.A-23011/ 25/2015-Ad.IIA dated 20.06.2016 Annexure-R3: True copy of Ministry's letter F.No.A-26017/76/2009- Ad.IIA dated 29.09.2009 Annexure-R4: True copy of the common judgment dated 19.06.2018 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.123/2017 and connected cases DEEPA S 2025.06.13 12:50:35+05'30'