Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Umaji Madhorao Kshirsagar vs Ordnance Factory Board (Ofb) on 18 June, 2025
1 OA No.2125/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench: Mumbai
OA No. 2125/2020
Reserved on: 10.02.2025
Pronounced on: 18.06.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Shri Umaji Kshirsagar S/o Shri Madhorao Kshirsagar,
Designation: Retired Examiner / H.S. Gr.-I, Ordnance
Factory Ambajhari, Nagpur - 440 021, Age: 61 Yrs.,
R/o Daulatwadi, Plot 43, Gajanan Society, Duttawadi,
Nagpur - 440 023, (M.S.).
-Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. M.G. Burde)
Versus
1. The Union of India,represented through
the Secretary,Department of Defence Production,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2. The D.G.O.F. / Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata- 700 001.
3. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory Ambajhari,
Amaravati Road, Dist.: Nagpur- 440 021.
- Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Avdhesh Kesari)
2 OA No.2125/2020
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Applicant, a retired employee has filed this OA after his retirement under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim following reliefs:-
"1) That, the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to struck down the impugned Factory Orders and also the pay-
fixation made in pursuance with those impugned orders and set them aside to the extent of their illegality (Annex.A-1, Annex.A-2 & Annex. A-3)
2) That, the Hon'ble Tribunal also be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay ACP-1 in S-7 pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000; attached with post of Highly-Skilled Grade, w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the date on which the recommendations of 6th C.P.C. was implemented and also the Order on restructuring of Cadre of Artisan Staff in Defence brought into effect.
3) That, the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant the financial upgradations under MACP-II & MACP-III in higher Grade Pays, as shown in Sub-Para 4.10 and 4.11 of Para 04 hereinabove; after the Applicant completed 20 & 30 years' of regular service.
4) That, the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the Respondents to refix the Applicant's Pay in higher Matrix Level with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-; after implementation of the recommendations of 07th Central Pay Commission.
5) That, the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the arrears of A.C.P/M.A.C.P. in the higher Pay Scales / Pay Bands + Grade Pays from the date of his entitlement and an amount of interest @ 12% per annum or at any other reasonable rate thereon.
6) That, the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to grant cost of Rs. 50,000/- for the proceeding before this Hon'ble Tribunal and incidentals thereto and any 3 OA No.2125/2020 other benefits as deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts as stated by the applicant in the OA are that he was appointed as Labourer / Unskilled on 19th October, 1987 in Ordnance Factory Ambajhari and granted 1st ACP on 19th October, 1999, after completion of 12 years' regular service. Consequent upon implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Group 'D' posts in all the trades including the Labourer had been abolished and/or merged into Group 'C' post in Ordnance Factory Organization as per the Government's Order. However, the post of Semi-skilled Grades were / are still maintained as initial production - trainee posts for the purpose of imparting requisite trainings for a prescribed period; before upgrading the incumbent employees to the post of Skilled Grade. The applicant was, therefore, placed in Pay Band-1 of Rs. 5200-20200 + Rs. 1800 Grade Pay in the post of Labourer / Semi-Skilled w.e.f. 01st January, 2006.
3. The applicant had been granted 1st and 2nd Financial Upgradation under MACP-I & MACP-II in Pay Band-1 of Rs. 4 OA No.2125/2020 5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 & 2000/- with effect from 01st September, 2008, without granting ACP-I on 01st January, 2006 (Annexure- A-2).
4. The respondent no. 3 fixed the applicant's pay in PB-1 at lower Matrix Level 05 with erroneous Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- attached with the post of Examiner / Highly Skilled Grade-II (HSK-II) with effect from 01st January, 2016, after implementation of the recommendations of the 07th CPC. He was further granted MACP-III in PB-1 at pay Matrix Level 05 with the Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- with effect from 19th October, 2017 (Annexure- A-3).
5. The post or grade of Semi-Skilled of I.E. in Ordnance Factories Organization was/is a trainee post or grade. Hence, the movement of employees from Semi-Skilled Grade to Skilled Grade is not reckoned as promotion / upgradation and it is not offset against entitlement under ACP Scheme in Ordnance Factories (Annexure- A-4).
6. The respondent no. 2 issued an Order no. 01/CR/A/I/658 dated 13th December, 2010 on restructuring the Cadre of Artisan Staff in Defence i.e. I.E., 5 OA No.2125/2020 based upon Ministry of Defence letter No. 11(5)/2009- D(Civ. I) dated 14th June, 2010 and thereby, inter alia, restructured the Grades of I.E. commencing from Skilled Grade (initial) to Master Craftsman and the pay scales / Pay Bands and Grade Pays have been modified accordingly with effect from 01st January, 2006 and allowed to retain the financial upgradation to Highly Skilled Workers between the period from 01st January, 2006 to 31st August, 2008 under ACP Scheme (Annexure- A-6). But the respondents did not grant the benefit of aforesaid Government Orders while granting ACP-I, MACP-II and MACP-III to the applicant.
7. It has been averred that the applicant was granted the revised pay at Lower Matrix Level 05 with erroneous grade pay of Rs. 2800/- as 3rd Financial Upgradation under the MACP Scheme i.e. MACP-III with effect from 19th October, 2017 while his junior, Smt. Pramila Kolhe, Examiner Engineer / H.S. Grade-I was granted the revised pay at Matrix Level 06 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- for the MACP-III; vide the impugned Factory Order Part-3 No. 509 dated 16th March, 2018 (Annexure- A-1). Therefore, non- 6 OA No.2125/2020 grant of Pay Level 06 to the applicant was illegal. He claimed that he should also be granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- as has been granted to his junior.
8. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondents, applicant has approached this Tribunal. The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others versus M.V. Mohanan Nair in Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020 dated 05th March, 2020. He has further placed reliance on the decision of the Principal Bench of the CAT in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar, UDC & 18 Ors. Vs. Union of India & 2 Ors. in OA No. 904 of 2012 and in the case of Shri Om Prakash & 5 Ors. vs. Union of India & 3 Ors. in OA No. 3626/2014 dated 27th October, 2015. He has further placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Satish Dhandeo Karamkar & 2 Others vs. Union of India & 2 Others, decided on 20th March, 2019 in OA No. 511/2015.
9. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It has been submitted that the applicant 7 OA No.2125/2020 has been correctly granted MACP-III in Level 5 of the Pay Matrix of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 vide OFAJ F.O. Part-III No. 509 dated 16th March, 2018 and enclosed the copy of MACP dated 16th March, 2018 (Annexure - R-1). It has been submitted that applicant draws comparison of his case with that of his junior Smt. Pramila Kolhe, which is inappropriate considering the fact that the applicant had completed 30 years of service before his promotion to the grade of HS-I and accordingly was granted MACP-III before being promoted to the grade of HS-I, whereas, in the case of his junior, namely Smt. Pramila Kolhe, the individual had completed 30 years of service after being promoted to HS-I grade and, therefore, comparison with Smt. Pramila Kolhe is not proper.
10. The respondents have given the comparison of pay fixation from the date of joining of applicant as well as of Smt. Pramila Kolhe which is tabulated as under:-
SERVICE PARTICULAR OF SHRI U.M. KSHIRSAGAR Sl. No. Designation Pay Scale w.e.f Mode of holding
1. Labourer/Un-Sk Rs. 750- 19/10/1987 Appointment 940/-
2. ACP-1 Rs. 2650- 19/10/1999 Financial 65-3300- Upgradation 70-4000/-8 OA No.2125/2020
3. Re-Designated 1800 GP 01/01/2006 As per 6th CPC As Recommendation Labourer/SSK
4. MACP-I 1900 GP 01/09/2008 Financial Upgradation
5. MACP-2 2000 GP 01/09/2008 Financial Upgradation
6. Re-designated -- 01/12/2009 Re-Designation Exam NGG/SSK From Labourer/SSK
7. Exam Engg/SK -- 01/12/2011 Placement from SSK to SK
8. Exam Engg/ HS- 2400 GP 01/12/2011 Placement from SSK II to SK
9. MACP-3(*) 2800 GP 19/10/2017 Financial Upgradation (*)MACP-3 granted on completion of 30 years of service in the next Grade Pay.
10. Exam Engg/HS- -- 01/12/2017 Promotion I Superannuated on 30/06/2018.
SERVICE PARTICULAR OF SMT. PRAMILA KOLHE Sl. No. Designation Pay Scale w.e.f. Mode of holding
1. Labourer/Un-Sk Rs. 750- 11/02/1988 Appointment 940/-
2. ACP-1 Rs. 2650- 11/02/2000 Financial 65-3300- Upgradation 70-4000/-
3. Re-Designated 1800 GP 01/01/2006 As per 6th CPC As Recommendation Labourer/SSK
4. MACP-I 1900 GP 01/09/2008 Financial Upgradation
5. MACP-2 2000 GP 01/09/2008 Financial Upgradation
6. Re-designated -- 01/12/2009 Re-designation from Exam NGG/SSK Labourer/SSK
7. Exam Engg/SK -- 01/12/2011 Placement from SSK to Skilled
8. Exam Engg/ HS- 2400 GP 01/12/2014 Promotion from II Skilled to HS-II
9. Exam Engg/ 2800 GP 01/12/2017 Promotion HS-I
10. MACP-3(*) 4200 GP 11/02/2018 Financial upgradation (*)MACP-3 granted on completion of 30 years of service in next Grade Pay. 9 OA No.2125/2020
11. It is further submitted that prior to implementation of 6th CPC recommendations w.e.f 01.01.2006, the Pay scales of Unskilled worker and Semiskilled worker were different i.e. Rs. 2550-3200 & Rs. 2650-4000 respectively under Group "D" Post. Further, consequent on implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, all group 'D' posts were up- graded as Group 'C' posts with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/ in Pay Band-1. Accordingly, the posts of pay scales of Unskilled worker and Semiskilled worker were upgraded and placed in same Pay Band with same Grade Pay i.e. Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/-.
12. The post of Labourer Unskilled was re-designated as Labourer Semiskilled. However, the posts of Labourer Semiskilled and Tradesman Semiskilled are still different posts and have different service conditions and promotional avenues. Recruitment to the post of Labourer Semiskilled is done against the sanctioned strength of said post only, whereas, recruitment to the post of Tradesman Semiskilled is done against the sanctioned strength of Tradesman Skilled post. Further, Labourer Semiskilled is the feeder 10 OA No.2125/2020 post for filling promotion quota in Tradesman Semiskilled post.
13. It is further submitted that consequent on implementation of 6th CPC recommendations and related Govt. of India's decision regarding Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, which entitles the Central Govt. employees for financial up-gradation in next higher Grade Pay on completion of 10,20,30 years of service or 10 years of service in the same grade. The applicant has correctly been granted MACP-I& MACP-II in Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- and Rs.2000/- respectively w.e.f. 01.09.2008, subsequent to the up-gradation of Labourer post to Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- as per Rule envisaged in DoP&T OM No. 35034/3/2008 dated 19/05/2009 regarding grant of MACP(Collectively marked as Annexure R-2).
14. It is further submitted that the applicant was drawing pay in Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- as on 01.01.2016. Accordingly, his pay was revised as per CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 in Level-4 of the Pay Matrix. 11 OA No.2125/2020
15. It has been submitted that the applicant would have been granted MACP-III in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- in Pay Band-2, if he had completed 30 years of service (for grant of MACP-3), after promotion in the grade of HS-I (Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-), which is materialized in case of Smt. Pramila Kolhe as per extant rule in force.
16. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and contested their submissions. It has been submitted that the scheme of ACP was in force till 31st August, 2008 and the scheme of MACP brought into effect from 01st September, 2008. Hence, the applicant ought to have been granted ACP-I in the pay scale attached with the promotional higher post as on 01st January, 2006 as per the provisions of ACP Scheme as decided by a catena of judgments of the Tribunal and the High Courts. The applicant has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Satish Dhandeo Karamkar & 2 Others (supra), in which the applicants therein were granted the benefit of higher pay scale attached with the promotion post under ACP Scheme as on 01st January, 12 OA No.2125/2020 2006 on the ground that MACP Scheme was made applicant with effect from 01st September, 2008.
17. It is further submitted that the applicant would not be entitled to the benefit under MACP Scheme, if he got the promotion to higher post; because the entire scheme of financial upgradation (benefit) is based upon the principle of granting higher pay scale or Grade Pay of higher post if the employee is stagnated and/or not promoted within prescribed time limit. Such submissions on the part of respondents are evidently misleading and illegal and hence, it must be rejected with heavy cost to be imposed upon the Respondents; for misinterpreting the actual provisions of law of ACP / MACP and denying the benefit of MACP Scheme at least at par with his junior; who completed 30 years of service subsequent to the applicant and granted higher Grade Pay.
18. The Applicant also avers that the ACP-I benefits ought to have been granted in view of the merger of the post / grade in the cadre of Industrial Employees as stated in para 4.8 of the instant O.A. and the same allowed to be 13 OA No.2125/2020 retained by him; as per the Order in Para (5.) as provided in M. of D. I.D. No. 11(5)/2009-D(Civ.-I) dated 01st December 2010 referred at sl. no. (iii) in O.F.B.'s letter No 01/CR/A/1658 dated 13th December 2010 (Annex.A-6); which is placed, verbatim, as under: -
"5. While carrying out the restructuring as per the M of D letter at reference (i), financial up gradation (in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000), granted to the Highly Skilled Workers (in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000) between the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 under the ACP Scheme of August, 1999, will not be withdrawn as a one time measure as clarified vide M of D letter at ref (iii)."
19. It is evident from the Order of M. of D. I.D. No. 11(5)/2009-D(Civ.-1) dated 01st December 2010, the merger of H.S.-II and H.S.-I was continued till 13.12.2010, as it was demerged w.e.f. 01.01.2006 retrospectively; vide M of D. ID circulated through OFB's letter No. 01/CR/A/I/658 dated 13th December 2010. However, as stated in Para 5. of the aforesaid letter and placed it verbatim hereinabove, the financial up gradation (in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000), granted to the Highly Skilled Workers (in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000) between the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 14 OA No.2125/2020 under the ACP Scheme of August, 1999, would not be withdrawn as a onetime measure as clarified vide M of D letter at ref (iii). Hence, the contentions of Respondents; relying upon wrong interpretation of the existing hierarchical promotion grade in the cadre of IEs during the relevant period are evidently misleading and false and deserved to be rejected.
20. Respondents have not filed any reply to the rejoinder submitted by the applicant. During the final argument, learned counsel for both the sides have made arguments on the basis of pleadings. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. versus Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh in Civil Appeal No. 5545 of 2022 decided on 22nd August, 2022.
21. During arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the pleadings and argued that the applicant has been illegally denied the benefit of grant of ACP-I in S-7 pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- as per 15 OA No.2125/2020 recommendation of 7th CPC and also denied the pay parity with his junior, Smt. Pramila Kolhe who has been given the grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- while the applicant was granted the grade pay of Rs. 2,800/- only. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the submissions made in the reply of the respondents. He also submitted that the applicant has never raised any grievance regarding grant of 1st ACP with effect from 01.01.2006 or grant of GP of Rs. 4,600/- as per 7th CPC while he was in service. He submitted that the applicant is trying to put the clock back by claiming the Grade Pay in Pay Band-1 with effect from 01.01.2006 after his retirement. Since the applicant has not produced any evidence that he has raised this issue while he was in service, he cannot raise this issue now. Regarding the pay parity with his junior, Smt. Pramila Kolhe, he justified that the same was granted as per the Rules and, therefore, OA is devoid of merit.
22. We have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides and have also perused the pleadings and documents filed on record. 16 OA No.2125/2020
23. It is an admitted fact that the applicant has joined as Labourer/Unskilled in the pay grade of Rs. 750-940/- on 19th October, 1987 while Smt. Pramila Kolhe has joined on the same post of Labourer/Unskilled in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- on 11th February, 1988. Thus, the applicant was senior to Smt. Pramila Kolhe. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant was promoted as EXAMENGG/HS-I on 01st December, 2017 while Smt. Pramila Kolhe was promoted on the same post on 11th February, 2018 and was granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- while applicant remained in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-.
24. It is a settled law that a senior on the same post cannot get less pay than his immediate junior. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant was granted 3rd MACP on 19th October, 2017 in the GP of Rs. 2800/- and, therefore, he was not granted the GP of Rs. 2800/- on his promotion to the post of EXAMENGG/HS-I on 01st December, 2017 while Smt. Pramila Kolhe was promoted on 01st December, 2017 in the GP of Rs. 2800/- and was granted MACP-3 in the GP of Rs. 17 OA No.2125/2020 4200/- defies the logic. Therefore, we will find force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was illegally denied the GP of Rs. 4200/- while his immediate junior was granted GP of Rs. 4200/- for the same post. The submission of the respondents that applicant would have been granted MACP-3 in the GP of Rs. 4200 in PB-2, if he had completed 30 years of service (for grant of MACP-3), after promotion in the grade of HS-I (Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-), which is materialized in the case of Smt. Pramila Kolhe is against the service jurisprudence.
25. The Hon'ble jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher vs The State Of Maharashtra vide judgment dated 21st November, 2013 in WP No. 10283.12&888.13 has considered the question whether it is appropriate to correct the pay anomaly by stepping up the pay of the senior equivalent to his junior and has held that pay of senior must be stepped up with the junior, if both the junior and senior belong to the same cadre and the post to which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre. The Hon'ble High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to take necessary 18 OA No.2125/2020 action to step up the pay of the petitioner therein at par with his junior. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Sujit Baran Mukherjee & Ors, (1997) 11 SCC 463, held that the senior is entitled to stepping up of pay with reference to the junior's pay if the senior as well as the junior discharge the same duties under the same responsibility and not in different circumstances.
26. In view of the above facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- as granted to his junior, Smt. Pramila Kolhe. Regarding the claim of the applicant to grant ACP-I in the pay band-1 of Rs. 5,200-20,200 + GP of Rs. 1800/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and claim of the applicant to refix the applicant's pay in higher pay matrix in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- as per the recommendation of 7th CPC, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others versus N.M. Raut and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3873 has considered the judgment of Bench of three Judges in the case of Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair 19 OA No.2125/2020 (supra) regarding the grant of MACP which was subsequently followed and elaborated in the cases of (i) Union of India v. R.K. Sharma; (ii) Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. K. Sudheesh Kumar; and (iii) Union of India v. Ex.HC/GD Virender Singh and has held that the nature of the financial upgradation was different in the ACP than financial upgradation in the MACP. 26.1. It has been further held that the entitlement of the benefit of the MACP will be considered only after taking into consideration all the financial upgradations earned by the employees in terms of 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the financial upgradation under the ACP was to the pay scale of the next higher promotional post in the service whereas under the MACP, financial upgradation was not with the reference to the next higher promotional post but to the 20 OA No.2125/2020 next higher Grade Pay in the scale of pay as notified upon implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
27. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the applicant on his promotion on 01st December, 2017 will be entitled to the next higher Grade Pay in the scale of pay.
28. In view of the above facts, we deem it appropriate to direct the applicant to make a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.M. Raut (supra). The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of N.M. Raut (supra) and Sujit Baran Mukherjee & Ors (supra) and pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks on the receipt of representation from the applicant. Needless to mention that the applicant is at liberty to 21 OA No.2125/2020 approach the appropriate forum, if his grievances are not redressed as per law.
29. OA is disposed of in terms of above order and directions. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs (Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A) 'nk' Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4 05297e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93 Kumari fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.25 17:08:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0