Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Altaf Hussain Khan & Anr vs National Institute Of Technology on 28 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.42
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No.1409/2023
ALTAF HUSSAIN KHAN & ANR. ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: Mr. Arshad Wani, Advocate.
Vs.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
& OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with
Mr. Faizan, Advocate.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR,JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
28.04.2025
1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for challenging order bearing No.158 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020 to the extent of granting notional effect to their MACP financial upgradation. They have also sought a direction upon the respondents to consider their case afresh for their upgradation under MACP scheme with monetary benefits.
2. As per case of the petitioners, they came to be appointed initially as Junior Instructors and subsequently were promoted as Senior Instructors. The petitioners are stated to have attained the age of superannuation in the years 2016 and 2017 respectively while they were holding the posts of ASW/Technical Officers.
3. According to the petitioners, their promotion under Modified Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (MACP), as recommended by 6 th Pay Commission, was approved by the Executive Chairman of MACP 2 Committee, Deputy Registrar (Accounts) and A. R. (Audit) along with certain similarly situated employees. However, in the case of the petitioners and one Mr. A. H. Khaki, the benefit of upgradation under MACP scheme was given only a notional effect.
4. The petitioners claim that they were hopeful that the respondents would accord consideration to grant of financial upgradation under MACP scheme in their favour as was done in the case of similarly situated employees but even when they attained the age of superannuation in the year 2016/17, the respondents did not extend the said benefit in their favour and instead vide Order No.158 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020, which is impugned in the present petition, only notional effect was given to the upgradation under MACP scheme in their favour.
5. The petitioners have contended that the aforesaid action of the respondents is discriminatory and unfair as the MACP scheme provides for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service in the case of Central Government employees. It has been further contended that Shri A. H. Khaki, whose name is also figuring in the impugned order dated 04.11.2020, approached this Court by way of a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.2800/2021 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, financial upgradation under MACP scheme was granted in his favour and in this regard Order No.753/2022 dated 18.10.2022 came to be issued by the respondents.
6. The petitioners have submitted that they have filed a number of representations before respondent No.2 which includes the 3 representations made in April, 2021, for redressal of their genuine grievances but the respondents have not taken any action in the matter, hence the present writ petition.
7. The respondents, in their reply, have admitted the service profile of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the MACP of petitioner No.1 was due on completion of 30 years on 03.08.2015 whereas MACP of petitioner No.2 was due on 31.07.2015 and, accordingly, their cases were considered in the year 2015. It has been contended that certain clarifications were needed as the petitioners were re-designated as Technical Officers in the new structure of NIT, Srinagar, and this led to delay in MACP of all employees including the petitioners. It has been claimed that the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 has been issued in accordance with MACP Rules dated 19.05.2009 and consolidated guidelines dated 22.10.2019.
8. The respondents have submitted that MACP to the petitioners and Mr. A. H. Khaki was granted on completion of 30 years of service and the same was made effective from 31.07.2015, 03.08.2015 and 01.12.2015 with monetary benefit from 04.11.2020. It has been claimed that notional effect of MACP was given to all the eligible employees of the Institute on the recommendations of MACP Committee. It is in the light of the recommendations of the said Committee that the representation of the petitioners was not considered.
9. According to the respondents, Mr. A. H. Khaki had, immediately after issuance of the impugned order dated 04.11.2020, filed a writ petition 4 whereafter his claim was considered. It has been further contended that because the petitioners have approached the Court belatedly after the efflux of about three years from the date of issuance of the impugned order, as such, their claim is liable to be rejected on the ground of acquiescence.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are entitled to upgradation under MACP scheme. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.1 has been granted upgradation under the said scheme with effect from 03.08.2015 whereas petitioner No.2 has been granted upgradation with effect from 31.07.2015. The respondents claim that the petitioners were entitled to upgradation on notional basis and they were not entitled to monetary benefits from the aforesaid dates. It is not in dispute that Shri A. H. Khaki, whose name also figures in the impugned order dated 04.11.2020, has been granted monetary effect to his upgradation under 3rd MACP in terms of order No.753/2022 dated 18.10.2022. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioners and Shri A. H. Khaki are similarly situated.
12. The stand of the respondents in denying monetary benefits to the petitioners in respect of their upgradation is that the petitioners have approached the court after about three years of issuance of the impugned order, as such, their case for grant of monetary benefits cannot be considered at this belated stage. It is being claimed by the respondents that they have granted monetary effect to the upgradation of Mr. Khaki on the 5 basis of the directions of the Court and the petitioners being fence sitters cannot take benefit of the relief granted to Mr. Khaki in terms of the orders of the Court.
13. The contention raised by the respondents for denying the monetary benefits to the petitioners is not supported by the material on record. If we have a look at the final order dated 10.02.2023 passed in the writ petition that was filed by Mr. A. H. Khaki (WP(C) No.2800/2021), it is revealed that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties because during the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents had issued order No.753 of 2022 dated 18.10.2022, whereby they had granted monetary benefits to the upgradation of Mr. A. H. Khaki. Thus, the contention of the respondents that they granted monetary benefit to Mr. A. H. Khaki in terms of the Court directions is contrary to record.
14. So far as the contention of the respondents with regard to delay and laches is concerned , the same is also without any substance because the petitioners have throughout agitated their grievance before the respondents by making repeated representations. The impugned order came to be issued on 04.11.2020, whereafter the petitioners made representations dated 18.02.2021, 28.04.2021 and 15.05.2023, copies whereof have been placed on record by the petitioners. It is not a case where the petitioners have waited for unduly long time before approaching the Court but it is a case where the petitioners have been persistently and regularly representing before the respondents and when they failed to get 6 any favourable response and further when they came to know that monetary effect has been granted by the respondents to Mr. A. H. Khaki, who is a similarly situated person, they decided to file the present writ petition in June, 2023. In these circumstances, by no stretch of reasoning, it can be stated that there has been any undue delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court or that they have acquiesced in the impugned action of the respondents. The contention of the respondents is, therefore, without any merit.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of 3rd MACP by giving monetary effect to the same from the date(s) it was granted to them in terms of the impugned order dated 04.11.2020. Needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon them.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 28.04.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy"
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.04.2025 02:29