Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rohtash Singh vs M/O Defence on 4 August, 2025
1- O.A. No. 783/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/783/2021
Decided on: 04.08.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Rohtash Singh s/o Sh Nand Lal aged 56 years, working as Civilian
Switch Board Operator (CSBO) Grade-1. Western Command, Composite
Signal Regiment (WCCSR), Chandimandir-134107
2. Sh. Vikas Kumar S/o Sh. Dharampal, CSBO Grade- I (WCCSR),
Chandigarh.
3. Sh. Puneet Sharma s/o Sh. Bodh Raj Sharma, CSBO, Grade-II
(WCCSR), Chandigarh.
4. Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Balbir Singh, CSBO Grade-I, (WCCSR)
Ambala-Cantt-133001,
5. Sh. Hisam Pal s/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Dass, CSBO, Gde-1,
(WCCSR), Ambala Cantt-133001
6. Sh. Gurdev Singh s/o Late Sh. Bishna Ram, CSBO Grade-1 (WCCSR),
Ambala Cantt-133001
7. Mrs. Gurmail Kaur w/o Sh. Maichel Simuel, Tele SB Supvr, (WCCSR),
Ambala Cantt (now retd) r/o House 8 (A) Ram Nagar Ambala Cantt-
133001.
8. Sh. Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Prahlad Singh, CSBO-Grade-I (WCCSR),
Ambala Cantt-133001.
9. Sh. Romesh Kumar s/o Sh. Roshan Lal, CSBO Grade-I (WCCSR),
Nahan.
10. Sh. Baljit Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh, CSBO Grade-II (WCCSR)
Chandigarh.
11. Sh. Surender Thakur S/o Late Sh. A.R. Thakur, Ex- Tele SB
Supervisor r/o Village Shilly, Distt, Shimla-171011.
12. Sh. Subhash Thakur s/o Late Sh. Roop Ram, Tele SB Supervisor
(WCCSR), Shimla.
13. Sh. Nek Ram s/o Late Sh. Jagat Ram, Ex- CSBO Gde-1 r/o Village
Banalag, Post Office Haripur, Distt Solan,-173206.
2- O.A. No. 783/2021
14. Mrs. Leela Kashyap w/o Late Sh. Prem Dass Kashyap, Ex-Tele SB
Supvr, (WCCSR) r/o Village Bhatta Kuffer, Kashyap Niwas, Kamla Nagar,
Sanjoli Shimla-170006.
15. Mrs.Kheema Devi w/o Sh. Sunder Lal, Ex-Tele SB Supvr r/o
Shubash General Store, Navbhar, Shimla-171002.20
16. Mrs. Usha Thakur w/o Sh Suresh Singh Thakur. Supervisor, WCCSR,
SHIMA Tele SB
17. Mrs. Urmil Thakur, w/o Sh. Roshan Lal Thakur, Ex- CSBO Gde-1. r/o
Divya Kung Paobo, Shimla-171006.
18. Mrs. Anupam Rana w/o Sh. Parveen Rana, CSBO Grade-1,
(WCCSR), Shimla.
19. Mrs. Harjinder Kaur w/o Sh. Davinder Singh, CSBO-Grade-I.
(WCCSR), Shimla.
20. Sh. Onkar Singh Guleria S/o Late Sh. Ranjit Singh Guleria, Ex-Ex-
CSBO Grade-I r/o Village Averi, Tehsil Baijnath, Distt Kangra-176081
21. Sh. Ravi Dass s/o Late Sh. Khushi Ram, Ex-CSBO Grade-I, c/o Ajay
Sahni, Village Tiga Chetar, P.O. Yol Cantt, Distt Kangra-1760052.
(All the applicants are Group-C employees)
All the applicants are working under the control of Western Command,
Composite Signal Regiment (WCCSR), Chandimadir-134107 except Sr.
no. 7, 11,13,14,15,17, 20, & 21 as they have already retired form
service.)
.... Applicants
By Advocate: Mr. K.B. Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. SO-in-C (Signal Officer-in-Chief), Directorate General of Signals,
Signals-4 (C) GS Branch, DHQ, PO, New Delhi-110011.
3. Officer-in-Charge, The Signals Records, Jabalpur (M.P.) -482001
4. Commanding Officer, Western Command, Composite Signal
Regiment, Chandimandir -134107.
5 Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (P), Draupadi Ghat
Allahabad(U.P.) -211001
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
3- O.A. No. 783/2021
O R D E R (Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) That the impugned speaking order dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure A-10) be quashed and set aside and letter dated
02.07.2021 (Annexure A-16) to the extent denying benefit of decision (A-5) be also set aside.
(ii) That the respondents be directed to extend them benefit of judgment dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Hon'ble Principal Bench in O.A. No. 3204/2011, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 32936/2017 on 15.11.2019(A-13) and grant them benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACPs in the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, 4600/- and 4800/- from due dates and grant them all consequential benefits arising out of such fixation of pay with interest @ 12% p.a including revised pensionary benefits in case of retired employees.
2. In brief, the applicants herein are working as Tele/Switch Board Supervisor, Civilian Switch Board Operator (CSBO) Grade I and CSBO Grade II except the applicants no. 7, 11,13,14,15, 17, 20 & 21 as they have retired from service and all of them are under the control of Ministry of Defence. The controversy involved in the present case is that the Government of India vide order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure A-4) sanctioned the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'TBPS') to CSBO under General Staff Branch common roaster of the Defence Department w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per which the 4- O.A. No. 783/2021 CSBOs were granted 1st TBPS to the post of CSBO I in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 and 2nd TBPS to the post of Tele/SB Supervisors in the scale of Rs.5500-9000. However, in the year 2008, on the recommendations of 6th CPC, the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, 5500- 9000 and 6500-10500 were merged in one pay Grade, PB-2 in the grade pay of Rs.4200 and thus the time bound promotion scheme became ineffective. The Government of India issued clarification/instructions, inter alia, stating that the employees, who have been granted financial upgrdation under the ACP Scheme/one time bound promotion scheme in the erstwhile scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 are eligible to get the next higher grade pay.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the similarly situated employees raised this issue before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3204/2011 titled Madhu Sudan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others claiming financial upgradations under MACP Scheme in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, Rs. 4600/- and Rs.4800/- on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service, which was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure A-5). The respondents challenged the said decision of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of CWP No. WP(C) No. 3974/2017 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.05.2017 (Annexure A-6) and the SLP No. 32936/2017 filed there against by the Department was also dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. The respondents considered the claim of the applicants after directions from this Tribunal in O.A. 589/2016 vide order dated 08.07.2016, but rejected the same vide order dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure A-10).
5- O.A. No. 783/2021
5. The respondents filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicants while relying upon condition no. 13 of MACP Scheme which state that the both Time Bound and MACP schemes shall not run concurrently.
6. The applicants have also filed rejoinder reiterating their contentions.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
8. At the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the applicants has placed on record a decision of this Tribunal in identical case titled Surinder Pal & Others Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 1095/2021 decided on 29.01.2025).
9. The identical issue has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in favour of the applicants in Surinder Pal's case, wherein also the applicants, who were working or retired as Tele/Switch Board Supervisor, Civilian Switch Board Operator, like the applicants herein, claimed the relief on the strength of decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The facts, relief claimed and grounds taken by the applicants and also the objections raised by the respondents in the instant O.A. are on the same lines as in Surinder Pal's case(supra). After dealing with the objections raised by the respondents, Surinder Pal' case (supra) was allowed by this Tribunal in terms of Madhu Sudan's case (supra). The relevant part of the decision is extracted hereunder for reference:-
"7. From the perusal of the decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), it is seen that the 6- O.A. No. 783/2021 controversy raised herein has already been settled, upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. The aspect of validity of the condition 13 of the MACP Scheme that both Time Bound and MACP schemes shall not run concurrently, has already been examined in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra) by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and it has held as under:-
"12. The grounds for rejection of the applicants' claim clearly is the provisions of para 13 of the MACP Scheme which states that time bound promotion scheme and MACP Scheme cannot run concurrently. However, we find that in the case of Drivers, the Government themselves have allowed the concurrent application of both the time bound scheme and the MACP Scheme. Moreover, it would be clear from the order of the CAT Mumbai Bench that the Department of Posts have adopted the MACP Scheme. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents cannot take the stand that as per para 13 of the Guidelines, MACP and time bound promotion scheme cannot run concurrently or having adopted the time bound scheme it cannot be jettisoned for adopting the MACP Scheme in light of the OM dated 19.05.2009 regarding Drivers and the Department of Posts to give up the CSBO scheme altogether and adopting the MACP Scheme, as this would clearly be discrimination. Moreover, the government introduced the scheme for the benefit of employees and therefore, choice should have been left to the employees at the time MACP Scheme was introduced whether or not they would like to continue with the old scheme or adopt the new scheme. Having not done so the respondents cannot discriminate between different employees as regards these benefits. We, therefore, see merit in the OA and the same is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to grant financial upgradation to the applicants under MACPs in the grade pay of Rs.4200, 4600 and 4800 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service under the MACP Scheme. No costs."
8. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicants are not similarly situated like the applicants in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), as is evident from the letter dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure A-10) wherein they only stated that the Government sanction for implementation of court order for grant of MACP to all CSBOs other than the 36 applicants (O.A. No. 3240/2011) has not yet been recieved. The action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of the judicial pronouncement to the similarly situated employees just for the reason that they were not party in that relevant case is illegal in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C. Lalitha, 2006 (1) SC, 640 and by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) SCT 354.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the issue involved in the instant O.A. has already been settled by the Principal Bench in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), which 7- O.A. No. 783/2021 has attained finality and stands implemented qua the applicants therein, therefore, the applicants being similarly situated like the applicants in the case aforementioned are entitled to the similar benefits. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of the aforementioned decision in the case of Madhu Sudan (Supra) to the applicants herein, being similarly situated like the applicants in the said case. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application stands allowed. No costs."
10. Accordingly, the instant Original Application, being squarely covered by the decision aforementioned in Surinder Pal's case (supra), is allowed in the same terms. The order dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure A-10) is quashed and set aside being illegal. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated: 04.08.2023 'mw'