Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rich Pal Singh And Others vs Central Excise & Customs on 27 May, 2025
1
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
Original Application No. 606/2016 with Miscellaneous
Application No. 70/2025, 615/2016 with Miscellaneous
Application No. 68/2025, 641/2016 with Miscellaneous
Application No. 66/2025, 681/2016 with Miscellaneous
Application No. 67/2025, 620/2017 with Miscellaneous
Application No. 69/2025, 102/2019 with Miscellaneous
Application No. 65/2025 & 148/2019
Order reserved on: 09.05.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 27.05.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOKRANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025
1. S.K. Bhaskar, aged about 56 years, S/o Sh. Man Singh,
presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Audit
Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Kumud Bhatnagar S/o Sh. S. L. Bhatnagar aged about 59
years, presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central
Excise Audit Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Jhoomar Mal Johia, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Ram
Kumar Johia, presently working as Assistant Commissioner,
Central Excise Audit Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. G.L Saini, aged about 59 years, s/o Sh. Bhagwan Das Saini,
presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Audit
Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Dana Ram, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Khyali Ram,
presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Audit
Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Vimal Kumar Meena, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Kanhaiya
Lal Meena, presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central
Excise Audit Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Ramavtar Yadav, aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Jitendra
Kumar, presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central
Excise Audit Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
2
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
8. Kailash Chand Jain, aged about 59 years S/o Sh. Hansraj
Jain, presently working as Assistant Commissioner (Law), Central
Excise Audit Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
9. R.C. Saini, aged about 59 years, s/o Sh. Bhagwana Ram
Saini is presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central
Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
10. K.C. Meena, aged about 56 years, S/o Sh. Goverdhan Lal
Meena presently working as Assistant Commissioner, SEZ ZIDUS
Pharma Ahmadabad
11. Brijmohan Verma, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Heera Lal
presently working as Superintendent, Central Excise Audit
Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
12. Anil Chandela, aged about 57 years, S/o Sh. C.M. Chandela,
presently working Assistant Commissioner, DG, CEI, Delhi Zonal
Unit West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
13. Sampat Rai, aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Ganpat Rai,
presently working as Assistant Commissioner Central Excise
Commissionerate, Gurgoan (Haryana).
14. Nand Lal Jinger, aged about 57 years, S/o (late) Sh. Ram
Prasad Jinger, presently working as Assistant Commissioner,
Service Tax, Gurgoan (Haryana)
15. Suresh Chand Gupta, aged about 57 years, S/o (late) Sh.
Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, presently working as Assistant
Commissioner, Central Excise Gurgoan (Haryana)
16. Rohitas Kumar Verma, aged about 59 years, s/o (late) sh.
Chouth Mal, presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central
Excise Alwar (Raj.)
17. Hoshiyar Singh, aged about 56 years, s/o (late) Sh. Sagar
Ram, presently working as Assistant Central Excise Deptt,,
Bhiwadi (Alwar) Commissioner,
18. Man Prakash Bareth, aged about 59 years, s/o (late) Sh.
R.D. Bareth, R/o Plot No. 133, Shiv Nagar-II, Murlipura, Jaipur.
19. Prakash Parwani, aged about 57 years, s/o (late) Sh.
Nenumal Parwani, presently working as Superintendent, Central
Excise Department, Bhiwadi (Raj.)
20. D.K. Tiwari, aged about 59 years, S/O Sh., B.L. Tiwari,
Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Department, Alwar.
21. Rajendra Singh Yadav, aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Sheo
Prasad, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Department,
Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar.
3
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
22. Ashok Kumar Sharma aged about 56 years, s/o Sh. Ganga
Sahay Sharma, Assistant Commissioner SEZ Reliance Jamnagar
(Gujarat)
23. M.S. Siddhu, aged about 59 years s/o Sh. Karnail Singh,
Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Department, Sikar
24. Mahendra Singh Yadav, aged about 58 years, 5/0 Sh.
Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Assistant Commissioner Central Excise
(Audit) Ahmadabad.
25. S.L. Soni aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahai Soni,
Superintendent, Central Excise Department, Audit, Jaipur.
...APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Virendra Loda for Shri Jai Lodha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Revenue Department, Central Board of Excise and
Customs, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Jaipur, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central Excise & Service
Tax, Jaipur Zone, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
...RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain
O.A. No. 615/2016 with M.A. No. 68/2025
1. Rich Pal Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o (late) Sh.
Bhagirath, R/o 4, Parshwanath Colony, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise &
Service Tax Commissionerate, Service Tax Division Udaipur (Raj.)
2. K.C. Tiwari, aged about 58 years, S/o (late) Sh. Bankat Lal
Tiwari, R/o F-59/A, Sector-14, Hiran Magri, Udaipur, is presently
working as Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner (Hqrs) Udaipur
(Raj.) Central Excise
3. Arun Kumar Srimali, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh.
Rameshwar Dayal Shrimali, R/o C/o V.S. Shrimali, Plot No. 56,
Road No. 1, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur, presently working as Assistant
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Division, Bhilwara
(Raj.)
4
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
4. M.M. Srivastava, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Κ.Μ.L.
Srivastava, R/o B-119, 10-B Scheme, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur,
presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise
Commissionerate, Alwar (Raj.)
5. M.S. Acharya, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar
Acharya, R/o 24, New Mahavir Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector 4,
Udaipur, presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Central
Excise Commissioner (Hqrs.) Udaipur (Raj.)
6. Kuldeep Jindolia, aged about 60 years, S/o Sh Jindolia, R/o
G-1, Opp. Green Field School, Ram Nagar Vistar, Jaipur (VRS
while working on the post of Assistant Commissioner w.e.f.
09.11.2015.
7. Gopal Prasad Dadhich, aged about 56 years, S/o Sh. Jagdish
Prasad Dadhich, R/o A-85, Opp. Lions Eye Hospital, Subhash
Nagar, Bhilwara, presently working as Superintendent, Central
Excise & Service Tax Division, Bhilwara (Raj.)
8. D.K. Khant, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Kanji Bhai Khant,
R/o 786, Swami Nagar, Paneroi Ka Madri, Udaipur, presently
working as Superintendent, Central Excise Service Tax Division,
Udaipur (Raj.)
...APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Virendra Lodha for Shri Jai Lodha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Revenue Department, Central Board of Excise and
Customs, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Jaipur, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central Excise & Service
Tax, Jaipur Zone, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
...RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain
O.A.No. 641/2016 with M.A. No. 66/2025
1. Ramdev, aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Ramnath Ji, presently
working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise
Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
5
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
2. Dalu Ram Meena, s/o Sh. Chotu Lal Meena, presently
working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise
Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Parshu Ram Meena, aged about 62 years, S/o Sh. Jaipal
Meena, Retired as Superintendent, Central Excise Department
Alwar (Raj.)
...APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Virendra Lodha for Shri Jai Lodha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Revenue Department, Central Board of Excise and
Customs, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Jaipur, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central Excise & Service
Tax, Jaipur Zone, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
...RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain
O.A. No. 681/20216 with M.A. No. 67/2025
Surendra Singh Pabana, aged about 56 years, S/o Sh. Hanuman
Singh Ji, at present posted as Assistant Commissioner (under
suspension) in the office of Central Excise Commissionerate-I
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) b' Gurifice
...APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Virendra Lodha for Shri Jai Lodha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Revenue Department, Central Board of Excise and
Customs, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Jaipur, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central Excise & Service
Tax, Jaipur Zone, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
...RESPONDENTS
6
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain
O.A. No. 620/2017 with M.A. No. 69/2025
Narendra Singh Hada, aged about 60 years S/o Sh. Giridhari
Singh Hada, R/o E-33, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired as
Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-A,
Alwar)
...APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Virendra Lodha for Shri Jai Lodha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Revenue Department, Central Board of Excise and
Customs, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Jaipur, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central Excise & Service
Tax, Jaipur Zone, NCRB, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
...RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain
O.A. No. 102/2019 with M.A. No. 65/2025
Prem Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma age
around 60 years, R/o 2/155, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
Retired on 31.01.2019 as Assistant Commissioner O/o Chief
Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Zone, Jaipur.
...Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Mukesh Agarwal
Versus
1. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax,
Jaipur, NCRB, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005.
2. Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central Excise and Service
Tax, Jaipur Zone, NCRB, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005.
3. Senior Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts Officer, Central
Board of Excise & Customs, 3rd Floor, NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur-
302005.
7
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain
O.A. No. 148/2019
1. Nath Mal Verma, aged about 62 years, S/o Sh. B.R. Verma,
R/o D-129, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.) (Retired in the
office of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur)
2. Ram Chandra, aged about 64 years, S/o Sh. Mansa Ram,
R/o 111, Everest Vihar, Kings Road, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur-302019
(Raj.) (Retired in the office of Commissioner of Central Excise &
Service Tax, Jaipur)
3. Tara Chand Gupta, aged about 61 years, S/o Sh. Ram
Chandra Gupta, R/o C-24, Anand Vihar, Railway Colony,
Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired in the office of Commissioner of
CGST (Audit), Jaipur)
4. Shiv Kumar Sharma, aged about 65 years, S/o Sh. Surajmal
Sharma, R/o Plot No. 1, Jamnapuri, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.) (Retired in the office of Assistant Commissioner Customs
(FPO), Jaipur
5. Ramphal Yadav, aged about 64 years, S/o Sh. Har Narayn,
R/o A-93, Kardhani, Near Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara,
Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired in the office of Assistant Commissioner of
Central Excise & Service Tax, Alwar)
6. Gulshan Ram Arora, aged about 66 years, S/o Sh. Ram
Chand Arora, 427, Brij Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired in
the office of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Service
Tax, Alwar)
7. Jyoti Meena, aged about 61 years, W/o Sh. R.K. Meena,
6/396, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired in the office of
Assistant Commissioner Customs (JGE), Jaipur)
8. S.K. Chhabra S/o Sh. Jaswant Ram Chhabra, aged about 63
years, R/o. B-51/A, Model Town B, Jagatpura Road, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur-302017 (Raj.) (Retired in the office of Commissioner
of CGST (Audit), Jaipur)
...APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Virendra Lodha for Shri Jai Lodha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes
& Customs, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.
8
O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New
Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central GST & Customs, (Jaipur
Zone), NCR Building, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001.
4. The Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central GST & Customs,
NCR Building, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001.
....RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER At the request of learned counsels for the parties, OA No. 606/2016, 615/2016, 641/2016, 681/2016, 620/2017, 102/2019 and 148/2019 are taken up together for disposal as common question of law and facts is involved in the aforesaid OAs.
2. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of OA No. 606/2016 are taken up. The OA No. 606/2016 has been filed by the applicants praying for the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly call the entire record pertaining to passing the impugned order dated 21.07.2016 (Annexure-A/1) in so far as it relates qua the applicants and after examining the same be pleased to declare the impugned order 21.07.2016 null and void and be quashed and set aside.
By an appropriate order or direction, the official respondents be restrained giving effect to the impugned order dated 21.07.2016, qua the applicants and any consequential order now likely to be issued the same may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside.
By an appropriate order or direction, the official respondents be restrained from taking any coercive steps against the applicants for implementation/execution of the impugned order dated 9 O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs 21.07.2016 qua the applicants and in case if any order prejudicial/detrimental to the interest of applicant is passed by respondents on the basis of impugned order dated 21.07.2016, the same may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside.
By an appropriate Order or directions, if any order prejudicial/detrimental to the interest of applicant is passed by respondents during the pendency of the original application, the same may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside.
Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.
Cost of the original application may kindly be awarded to the applicants."
2. Since the issue involved in the present O.A. was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the matter had been adjourned awaiting the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The issue in short was as to whether the Non Functional Upgradation is to be considered for the purposes of grant of MACP as the same was rejected by the respondents in view of the stipulation in clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme. The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding bunch of appeals had interpreted and adjudicated as below:
16. Clause 13 of the MACPS states that any time-
bound promotion scheme, including in-situ promotion scheme, which is in force, may continue to be in operation for the concerned category of employees if it is decided by the concerned administrative authorities to retain such schemes. However, such schemes cannot run concurrently with the MACPS. The objective is clear. An incumbent eligible Government employee should not take the benefit of both - the time bound promotion scheme or in-situ promotion scheme as well as the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACPS.
10O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs We have specifically referred to clause 13 for, in our opinion, the financial upgradation which is granted, after two or four years of service, to Pharmacists or Superintendents, would indicate that they availed financial upgradation. In their cases, because of service conditions, the Government had thought it proper to grant them such financial upgradation after they completed two or four years of service in the lower pay-scale/Grade Pay. It is not the intention of the Government to ignore the said upgradation under the CCS RP Rules.
If we do so, we would be granting them additional benefits beyond what was envisaged and stated in the MACPS. The Revised Pay Rules, including a grant of financial benefits, and the MACPS are not two watertight or separate compartments, each conferring independent benefits without reference to the other. Grant of financial upgradations as well as promotions are to be duly accounted for and taken into consideration in the MACPS.
20. In view of the aforesaid position of the MACPS, we fail to understand how we can ignore the financial upgradation, which was granted upon completion of two or four years of service in the posts of Pharmacist or Superintendent, as the case may be, for the purpose of deciding as to whether or not the Government employee would be entitled to the next financial benefit under the MACPS. 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 arise because of the fact that the ACPS and MACPS did operate during 11 O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs different periods; the nature of financial upgradations was different; and the time periods specified for financial upgradation were different, but this cannot be a ground and reason to re-write or ignore the expressed language of the MACPS and the intent 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.
22. We are informed that, in the present case, the Government of India had implemented and executed the MACPS by granting benefits to the respondents and, later on, recoveries were initiated. As many of the employees may have retired, in terms of the decision of this Court in "State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, we deem it appropriate to direct that the Union of India will not effect any recovery of arrears from the retirees or those who are retiring within one year from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
23. In other cases, the recoveries may be made after issuing notice to the employee concerned, whose request for proportionate recovery over a period of time not exceeding two years, may be considered 12 O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs depending upon the quantum of recovery which is to be made. We also deem it appropriate to direct that the appellant, Union of India, will not charge interest on the amount to be recovered as they themselves had made the payment and, the issue being debatable, to ask the employees to pay interest at this distant point of time may lead to difficulty both in calculation as well as in payment.
25. Where recoveries have been made from the retirees, the same shall be refunded. However, in the case of serving employees, where recoveries have been made, the same need not be refunded."
3. As such the applicability of clause 8.1 of the MACPS has been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court hence the relief sought by the applicants in the present OA is decided on the similar terms as has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in its order dated 12.12.2024 (operative paras reproduced above).
4. In view of the above, O.A. Nos. 615/2016, 641/2016, 681/2016, 620/2017, 102/2019 and 148/2019 are also decided on similar terms as has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in its order dated 12.12.2024 (operative paras reproduced above).
5. Now coming to the M.A. No. 70/2025 moved by the applicants seeking leave to amend the O.A. The present O.A. was filed way back in 2016 and the issue involved was pending before the Hon'ble Apex court and the applicants have been seeking adjournments in the present O.A. on the ground that the present O.A. should be heard after the controversy is finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex court. Now when the controversy has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex court against the applicants, applicants have preferred this MA for amending the OA after almost nine years of filing of the O.A. 13 O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs
6. Respondents have taken strong objections and have stated in their reply that by way of present Misc. Application, the applicants are seeking amendment in the Original Application by assailing per se Clause 8.1 of MACP Scheme. It is pertinent to mention here that MACP Scheme was introduced vide O.M. dated 19.05.2009, made applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2008, The present Original Application was filed in the year 2016 and it was always open for the applicants to challenge Clause 8.1 of MACP Scheme. However, the applicants in their wisdom did not choose to challenge the same in 2016 at the time of filing of the present O.A. Be that as it may, since the year 2023, the applicants have been seeking continuous adjournments on the ground that the identical matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the present Original Application shall be squarely covered by that judgment. However, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 12.12.2024 has decided the issue against the applicants, they have now chosen to file the present Misc. Application for amendment of O.A. at this belated stage. Respondents have further averred that even if the applicants are aggrieved by clause 8.1 of MACP Scheme, they can always file a fresh original application in this regard which shall be decided on its own merits. Furthermore, the only reason assigned to file the present Misc. Application for amendment at this belated stage is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 26 of the judgment dated 12.12.2024 has observed that they have not made any comments or observations in petition / appeal which is filed challenging the validity and legality of clause 8.1 of MACP. Hence, just because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to make any comments on legality of clause 8.1 of MACP, will not by itself give rise to an occasion for challenging the said clause after many years of filing the present original application.
7. We have perused the MA No. 70/2025, the amendment sought by the applicants is aimed at ultimately seeking the same relief with only addition of challenging the validity and legality of clause 8.1 of MACPS.
14O.A. No. 606/2016 with M.A. No. 70/2025 & 6 Other connected OAs We are not inclined to allow the MA seeking amendment of the O.A., after contesting the issue through the present O.A. for nine long years out of which almost 1½ years the matter was requested to be adjourned by the applicants themselves on the ground that the controversy involved in the present case was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. One such order dated 04.12.2023 is reproduced below:
"Learned counsel for the applicant states that the controversy involved in the present case is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court hand next date of hearing is 14.012.2023 as such the matter be fixed after hearing of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, list on 02.02.2024. I.R. to continue till then."
8. Now, when the controversy has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court against the applicants, through the present M.A. they are seeking amendment in the O.A. trying to change the course through this M.A. to effectively seek the relief which they had sought in this original O.A. which has been held against them by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, M.A. Nos. 68/2025, 66/2025, 67/2025, 69/2025 and 65/2025 also stand dismissed.
10. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /ysm/