Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
A N Pandey vs Union Of India on 26 March, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00138 of 2015 A N Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00138 of 2015
Dated, this 26th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
A N Pandey, aged about 60 years, Son of late Sri Ram Lakhan Pandey,
R/o Village Bhargadwa P.O. Jungle Beni Madhav (Mohirpur), Distt
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Sharad Chandra Shukla
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, Central Organization of
Railway Electrification (CORE), Allahabad.
2. General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai.
3. Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Lucknow, Opposite
KKC, Station Road Lucknow.
4. Senior Personnel Officer, Railway Electrification, Opposite KKC,
Station Road Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to pay fixation, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the impugned office order No. 45 of 2013 to the extent it pertains to the Applicant.
(ii) Direct Opposite parties to re do fixation on grant of ACP/MACP taking into consideration the pay of the applicant on the post of SSE in Railway Electrification and not pay of Western Railway and pass orders afresh in lieu of the impugned order.
(iii) Direct opposite parties to first correctly fix the pay on grant of MACP and then to grant yearly increment thereafter and on its basis recalculate pension and pensionary benefits.
(iv) Grant arrears of salary and pension on aforesaid account with 12% interest.Page 1 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00138 of 2015 A N Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors.
(v) Grant any other relief which this Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Signal Inspector Grade-III with effect from 25.09.1980 in Railway Electrification, Vadodara and his lien was fixed in Vadodara Division of Western Railway. On completion of 2 year training, he was appointed on regular basis as Signal Inspector Grade-III, was promoted as Signal Inspector Grade-II with effect from 24.09.1985, as Signal Inspector Grade-I on 05.09.1991 (and transferred to Railway Electrification, Lucknow on 20.10.1998), and as Senior Section Engineer (SSE, Signal) with effect from 05.07.2001. 2.2 The applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 148 of 2004 in regard to fixation of his pay in the grade of SSE. The dispute was whether his pay should be fixed with reference to his parent cadre (in Western Railway) or his feeder cadre (in Railway Electrification) and the matter was adjudicated on 27.04.2009 holding that his pay should be fixed on the basis of the pay he was drawing in the lower post in Railway Electrification.
2.3 The applicant was granted 2nd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme with effect from 01.09.2008 and the 3rd MACP with effect from 01.10.2012. The present dispute arises from fixation of pay on grant of 2nd and 3rd MACP.
3. The applicant's grievance is that the respondents have considered the pay of the post in his parent cadre for pay fixation on grant of MACPs while they should have considered the pay of the feeder post in Railway Electrification, where he has worked throughout his career till his retirement on 30.06.2014, in consonance with the judgment and order dated 27.04.2009 of this Tribunal in OA No. 148 of 2004 which was implemented by the respondents. The applicant Page 2 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00138 of 2015 A N Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors. contends that having implemented the judgment rendered in OA No. 148 of 2004, it is not open for the respondents to take a different view in the matter when the applicant was never repatriated to his parent cadre.
4. The respondents contend that the pay of the applicant has been fixed on grant of financial upgradations under MACP on the basis of his substantive pay as per the Railway Board rules. It is stated that following the judgment in OA No. 148 of 2004, one time fixation of the applicant's pay with ad hoc increments was allowed by the respondents and the benefit of such ad hoc pay fixation cannot be taken into account for his pay fixation under MACP scheme with reference to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Railway Board's order dated 10.06.2009.
5. We have heard the parties.
6.1 A perusal of the judgment and order dated 27.04.2009 of this Tribunal reveals the following position in regard to the status of the applicant:
"2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1 After selection by the Railway Service Commission, Mumbai, and on completion of apprenticeship training, the applicant was posted in different Railway Electrification Divisions. He has been getting his promotions in the Railway Electrification Divisions from time to time. In his entire service career, he has never been repatriated to his parent cadre, i.e., Western Railways; neither he had been deputed to work under any other organization...
8. The issue was examined by us in OA No. 149/2004 and we have taken the view that the letters of the Railway Board relied on by the respondents speak clearly of protecting the pay scale of Railway Employee on the higher post and there could not be any recovery on the basis of these letters. Paragraph 4 of the circular dated 31.12.1985 referring to the Railway Board‟s letter dated 23.09.1971 and proviso to Rule 2018-BB-II is extracted below for better appreciation: "4. The matter has been carefully considered and the President is pleased to decide that on appointment to a second or subsequent ex-
cadre post, the pay may be fixed with reference to the pay drawn in the cadre post and if the pay so fixed happens to be less than the pay drawn in the previous ex-cadre post, the difference may be allowed as personal pay to be described in future increase in pay. This is subject to Page 3 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00138 of 2015 A N Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors.
the condition that on both occasions, the employee should have opted to draw pay in the scale of pay attached to the ex-cadre post."
9. In the circumstances, we set aside the order dated 19.05.2003 and direct that his pay on promotion to the post of Sr. Section Engineer should be fixed on the basis of the pay he was drawing in the lower post in R.E. w.e.f. the date of his increment (01.09.2001) as per his option and the normal rules of pay fixation..."
(emphasis supplied) Two points need to be noted from the above in the context of the controversy at hand. First, the applicant's parent cadre is Western Railway. Second, this Tribunal took note of the Railway Board's instructions that the principle of pay protection would apply if the pay fixed in the ex-cadre post is less than the pay drawn in the cadre post and directed the respondents to fix the applicant's pay in SSE grade on the basis of pay he was drawing in the lower grade in Railway Electrification.
6.2 The respondents cite paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Railway Board's order dated 10.06.2009 in support of the manner in which they have fixed the applicant's pay on grant of financial upgradations under MACP scheme. A perusal of the order dated 10.06.2009 shows that it is titled „Recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission - Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) for Railway Employees‟ and the paragraphs 26 and 27 pertain to the details of MACPS attached as Annexure to the order. These paragraphs are extracted below:
"26. Cases of persons holding higher posts purely on ad hoc basis shall also be considered by the Screening Committee along with others. They may allowed the benefit of financial upgradation on reversion to the lower post or if it is beneficial vis a vis the pay drawn on ad hoc basis.
27. Employees on deputation need not revert to the parent Department for availing the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACPS. They may exercise a fresh option to draw the pay in the Pay Band and the Grade Pay of the post held by them or the Pay plus Grade Pay admissible to them under the MACPS, whichever is beneficial."
(emphasis supplied) Page 4 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00138 of 2015 A N Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors. It is noted that paragraph 27 of the MACP guidelines quoted above applies when the employee is on deputation. Now it is not the case of the respondents that the applicant was on deputation to Railway Electrification; rather, their case is that the applicant was drawing pay in Railway Electrification on ad hoc basis. In view of this position, it appears to us that the provisions of paragraph 26 would be applicable in the applicant's case here. It emerges from the paragraph 26 quoted above that the employee holding a post on ad hoc basis is to be afforded the option to either avail of financial upgradation on reversion to his lower post, or vis a vis the pay drawn on ad hoc basis, whichever is beneficial. In other words, the employee should have the option to choose the more beneficial dispensation between financial upgradation with reference to his substantive post or to the pay drawn on ad hoc basis. In this view of the matter, we do not see merit in the averment of the respondents that on financial upgradation under MACP scheme, the applicant's pay must be fixed with reference to the pay drawn in lower post in parent cadre and not with reference to the pay enjoyed by him on ad hoc basis. In our understanding of paragraph 26 of MACP guidelines, the applicant is entitled to have his pay fixed on financial upgradation with reference to the pay drawn by him on ad hoc basis if it is more beneficial to him. This line of reasoning is also in tune with the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the earlier OA No. 148 of 2004 preferred by the applicant. Finally, when the applicant has practically served in Railway Electrification for his entire career, we do not see the justification in depriving him of a dispensation more beneficial to him by considering only his substantive pay in the parent cadre. 6.3 In conclusion, we hold that the applicant is entitled to avail of financial upgradation in the post of SSE as per the pay drawn by him on ad hoc basis in Railway Electrification.
Page 5 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00138 of 2015 A N Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is allowed, the order No. 45 of 2013 is quashed qua the applicant, and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of financial upgradations under MACP scheme to the applicant in the post of SSE based on the pay drawn by him on ad hoc basis in Railway Electrification and pay him arrears, without interest, within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2026.03.30
17:54:45 +05'30'
Page 6 of 6