Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
R Krishnaiah vs M/O Defence on 2 July, 2024
OA/703/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/703/2016
HYDERABAD, this the 2nd day of July, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
1. R. Krishnaiah, S/o. R Mallaiah, Aged about 54 years,
Occ Turner/6993, LMS, Ordnance Factory Medak,
R/o. Qr No. 22177, OFMK, Yeddumailaram, Medak District,
Telangana State.
2. B. Ananda Reddy, S/o. B. Showri Reddy, Aged about 52 years,
Occ: Machinist/6653, LMS/LMD, Ordnance Factory Medak,
R/o. Qr. No. 2805, Type III, ODF Estate, Yeddumailaram,
Medak District 05, Telangana State.
3. K. Ramesh Kuamr, S/o. K Chndrappa, Aged about 55 years,
Occ: Turner/803-7. LMS, Ordnance Factory Medak, R/o Qr No. 2461,
OFMK Estate, Yeddumailaram, Medak District, Telangana State.
4. A. Ananda Rao, S/o. A. Shashagırı Rao, Aged about 58 years,
Occ: Machinist/T. No 1133-9, LMS, OFMK Yeddumailaram,
Medak District, R/o Qr No. 22699, ODF Estate, Yeddumailaram,
Medak District, Telangana State.
5. Unnikrishnan TV, S/o. Velayudhan T.K, Aged about 41 years,
Occ: Machinist/TNo. 1607-4, LMS, OFMK Yeddumailaram,
Medak District, R/o Qr No. 2263, ODF Estate, Yeddumailaram,
Medak District, Telangana State.
6. R. Hanumantha Rao, S/o. R. Sathyanarayana Rao,
Aged about 51 years, Occ Machinist/P.No.630-6, LMS, OFMK
Yeddumailaram, Medak District, R/o H.O.6-37/302,
Perineedu Residence, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad.
7. I.V.S.S.N. Raju, S/o. I. Suryanarayana Raju, Aged about 50 years,
Occ Grinder/P.NO.719-3, LMS Section, Ordinance Factory,
Yeddumailaram, Medak District, R/o Qr No.3169, ODF Estate,
Yeddumailaram, Medak District, Telangana State.
8. P. Naga Raju, S/o. P Rajaiah, Aged about 57 years,
Occ: Turner/T. No 835-4. LMS, Ordinance Factory Medak,
R/o Qr. No.22281, ODF Estate, Yeddumailaram, Medak District,
Telangana State.
Page 1 of 7
OA/703/2016
9. K. Yoganandareddy, S/o K Hanumanthappa, Aged about 57 years,
Occ: Machinist/718-6. LMS, Ordinance Factory, Yeddumailaram,
Medak District, R/o H. No. 1-59-3/62, Ramaiah Nagar Colony
Opposite MMTS Lingamapally Hyderabad - 19.
10. V. Bapiraju, S/o. Balabhadra Raju, Aged about 59 years,
Occ: Miller/P No 834-7 Tool Room Maintenance,
Ordinance Factory Medak, R/o Qr No. 3612 ODF Estate,
Yeddumailaram, Medak District, Telangana State.
11. D. Madhava Rao, S/o. D. Laxmaiah, Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Machinist/P.No 717-9. LMS Ordinance Factory Medak,
R/o H No 11-319, SG Nagar, Jeedimetla. RR. District
12. G Narshimha Reddy, S/o. G. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 56 years,
Occ Turner/695-6. LMS, Ordinance Factory Medak, R/o Qr No. 2399,
Type III, ODF Estate, Yeddumailaram, Medak District, Telangana State.
13. M. Anjaiah, S/o. M. Laxmaiah, Aged about 52 years,
Occ: Turner/539-4 LMS Ordinance Factory Medak,
R/o. Qr No 2811 ODF Estate, Yeddumailaram, Medak District,
Telangana State.
14. K. Bhaskara Singh, S/o. K. Prathap Singh, Aged about 53 years,
Occ Turner/P.No. 689.5. LMS, ODF, Yeddumailaram, Medak District,
R/o. Qr No.3442, ODF Estate, Yeddumatlaram Medak District,
Telangana State.
15. Md. Abdul lateef, S/o. Md Abdul Jaleel, Aged about 56 years,
Occ: Turner/1306-1. OFMK, Yeddumailaram, Medak District,
R/o Qr No. 22693, ODF Estate, Yeddumailaram Medak District,
Telangana State.
16. M. Venkata Ramana, S/o. M. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 46 years,
Occ: Machinist/1669.4. OFMK, Yeddumailaram, Medak District,
R/o. Qr No. 2112, OFMK Estate, ODF Yeddumailaram, Medak District,
Telangana State.
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Mohan Chandra Has for N. Ramesh)
Vs.
1. The Government of India Rep. by
ITS Cabinet Secretary, South Block,
New Delhi 110 011.
2. The Union of India Rep. its by
Secretary (DP) Department of Defense Production,
South Block, New Delhi 110 011.
Page 2 of 7
OA/703/2016
3. The Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K. Bose Road,
Kolkata, West Bengal - 700 001.
4. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory,
Yeddumailaram, Medak District, T.S-502 205.
5. The Principal Controller of Accounts (Fys),
10-A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700001.
.....Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. M. Venkata Swamy, Sr. PC for CG)
-----
Page 3 of 7
OA/703/2016
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this OA, the applicants are seeking the following relief:
"......to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of Government of India in DOPT No.35034/3/2008- ESTT(D) MACP order dated 19th May 2009 in elimination of hierarchy pay scale in MACP Scheme for the applicants by which the applicants suffering with financial loss of about Rs 200 to Rs 500 and above per month is illegal, arbitrary and violative of rules on the subject matter and contrary to the various orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal and consequently direct the respondents to consider the next pay scale in the promotional hierarchy in place of existing impugned grade pay benefit in MACP Scheme w.e.f., 01.01.2006 by following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No 294 of 2015 dated 02-3- 2016 and batch in the interest of justice and pass such other order as are deemed fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the OA, are that the applicants were appointed as skilled workers in various trades and further promoted to the various categories and they are working with the organization. The applicants further contended that the Government of India has introduced the Assured Carrer Progression (ACP) scheme and the applicants were granted first financial upgradation after completion of 12 years after the required period of service with effect from the respective dates and the applicants were placed in the next promotional higher scale of pay, i.e Rs.4000-6000.
The applicants further contended that, the Government of India introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in the year 2008 on the recommendation of 6th CPC and the required period of service to be rendered for grant of financial upgradation was made on intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years. Accordingly, on completion of 20 years service, the applicants were granted 2nd MACP as per the said scheme. The applicants came in the same Pay Band- I Rs.5,200/- 20,200/- (Grade Pay of Page 4 of 7 OA/703/2016 Rs.2,400/-) and they were granted the next higher Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/. Thereby, the applicants have objected to the said scheme. According to the applicants, under ACP Scheme, when the benefit has been granted, they have been placed in the pay scale in the hierarchy of next promotion. However, as per the said MACP scheme against their stagnation, they have been granted only the next grade pay and they have not been placed in the next pay band in the promotional post. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present OA.
3. After Notice, respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief on the ground that, the benefit of financial upgradation has been extended under MACP scheme. As per the said scheme, financial upgradation is given in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of revised Pay Bands but not as per the promotional hierarchy.
The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that, the applicants, who have accepted the benefit of Grade Pay in the year 2016 approached this Tribunal challenging the scheme and the said scheme of MACP has been accepted by the Government of India and implemented on All India level basis. The respondents relied upon various orders passed by the various courts.
Though the relief has been granted by the courts on wrong assumption the only difference between ACP and MACP Scheme was to remove stagnation. However, the policy has been revised and by way of MACP, 3 financial upgradations are awarded after rendering 10, 20 and 30 Page 5 of 7 OA/703/2016 years of service. The person, who is facing stagnation after introduction of the said MACP Scheme, he will be granted the benefit only in the Grade Pay hierarchy, but not in promotional hierarchy. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents further contended that various matters are sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also has granted Stay in favour of existing MACP Scheme. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The applicants have been granted the benefit of the said MACP on completion of 20 years in the same Pay Band. However, they have been extended with the Grade Pay Benefits and their Pay Scale has not been revised. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal in OA/294/2015 vide order dated 02.03.2016.
6. It is to be noted that, ACP Scheme has been modified and the Government of India has issued the MACP Scheme and there is no ambiguity in the scheme. All over India, the persons who were facing the stagnation for the period of 10, 20 and 30 upon introduction of the MACP, they have been extended with the next higher Grade Pay benefit.
The applicants have accepted the said benefit on implementation in the year 2009 onwards and they have not raised any objection.
7. It is also to be noted that the matter is seized of before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, we do not find any ambiguity in the said MACP Scheme and the same has been rightly implemented in the matter of Page 6 of 7 OA/703/2016 applicants. We see no merit in the matter. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/al/
Page 7 of 7