Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ramesh Vithalrao Kulkarni And Others vs Posts on 30 November, 2023
CLL 1 Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Munbal, oO oAs 8 # f2 O21 Dated this Thursday the 30" day of Novem ber, 2623, Coram : Justice MiG. Sewlikar, Member (Judicial) By CS 6, Dr Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative), Ramesh Vithalrao Kulkarni » Aged 66 years, Occ. Retd ADPS CO Mumbai, Resident of : Plot No.4, Postal Colony, Shahupuri, Satara --415 002. Abhangrag V. Gaikwad, Aged 62 years, Occ. Retd. SSPOs Mumbai East Dn., Dadar, Mumbai Resident of : B21, Sanca Elegance, Sect-6, Santniaear, Moshi Pradhikaran, PCMC, Pune -- 412 105, Hanumant Jayawant Kakade, Aged 64 years, Dee. Retd. SSPOs Navi Mumbai Dn.. Panvel, Resident of - A-601 . Park Royale, Shivrainagar, Rahatani, Pune--- 411 617. Dagadu Balwantrao Shirke, Aged 66 years, Occ. Retd. SSPOs Pune City West Dn Resident of | A-L/808, Brookfield W Lows, Katraj-Kondhawa Bypass Road, Near Dharmnavat Petro! Pump, Pisoll, Pone-d1] O66, Arbadas Dhondiba Tekale, Aoed 63 Years, Occ, Retd. SSPOs Satara Dn, a, Resident of : Audumbar Niwas, Kamal Park, Gopalpatt Ske Manjari Bk Taluka -- Havel, Dist, Pune ~ 412 307, Subhash Bhagvant Walunj, Aged 63 years, Qce, Retd, Manager BDG RO Puns Resident of » A-10, SUYOG Sagar Housing Sachets, Sai Mandir Road, Kawade Nagar, ® " + 10, il, 2 OA.B27/2024 Pimple Guray, Pune ~ 411 06 1, Avinash Vinayakrao Deshmukh, Aged 63 years, Occ, Retd. SSPOs Pune City West Dn. Resident of : Flat-166 Bidg-A7 Shrimangesh CHS Krushnanagar, Sec 20, Chinchvad, Pune~ 411 619, Prakash Govind Kame, Aged 63 years, Occ. Retd. SPOs Pane MFT, Division, Rio ~ Flat No.20, S.No. 14/ 6-B, Chakradhar Garden, Sinhead Road, Anandnagar, Pane ~411 015, Arun Jagannath Gajendragadkar, Aged 68 years, Oce, Retd. Sr. Postmaster Mumbai Central HO, Resident of ; D-6, Pratiknagar, Tapodham Col omy, Talegaon Dabhade Station, Dist. Pune--~ 410 S07. Yashwvant Dattaray Suryavanshi, Aged 69 years, Cice, Reid. SSPOs Sangli Dn., Resident of - Krishna, Plot No.9, Post Colony, Shahupuri, Satara 415 002. Kantilal Manohar Kumthekar, Aged 66 years, Oce. Retd. SSPOs Mumbai West Da. Resident of : Plot No,267, Vaishnavnagar, Kedzaon,' Abmednagar--~ 414 005. Ram Abali Dhas. Aged 64 years, Occ. Retd. SSPOs Satara Dn., Resident of : Behind Panchayat Saraiti, Murshadpur, Ashti, Dist, Beed--~414 203, Rondibhau Ramu Korde, Aged 63 years, Occ, Retd. SPO Pune MET, Dn... Resident of > A-S Hareshowar Apartment, Near ST Stand Anandnagar Re jgurunagar Pune ~ 410-505, Ambadas Chinchole, Aged 60 years, feewich ad , posh Cpe ; to Soon! 3 - DA B27 2081 Gece. Retd. Sr Postmaster, Solapur HO, Resident of :C 218 Rajaswanagar, Bijapur Road, Solapur~413 004. Ganpat Rajaram Katte, Aged 64 years, Occ, Retd. SPOs Shrirampur Dn., Resident of : 2723 Datta Nagar Mohol, Dist. Solapur --413 213. Dhanaji Baburao Walke, Aged 62 years, Oce. Retd. ADPS RO Pune Resident of : Onkar Nivas, Hjau Nagar, Near Blood Bank, Madha Read, Kur uwadi, Tal ~ Madha, Dist. Solapur -- 413.208, Ananda Krishna Salokhe V. Gaikwad, Aged 62 years, Oce. Retd. Sr. Postmaster Sangali HO, At& Post ~ Rendal via Hupri PO Tal-Hatkalangale, Dist. Kolhapur ~ 416 203. Ashok Ramchandra Khorate, Aged $9 years, Occ. Retd. Sr. Supdt. OF Pos Sangli, Resident of : 78, Vadarage Road, Hallaxminagar, Gadhingiaj, Kolhapur ~ 416 502. Sopan Eknath Relekar, Aved 63 years, Oce. Retd. Sr Postmaster Panaji HO, Blo: Plat No.304, Govarikar Park, Behind Pandurang Apartment, Samratragar, Kolhapur ~ 416 008. Ganapati Ramehandra Patil, Aged 64 years, Occ. Retd. SP PSD Kolhapur, - Resident of ; 300A Ward, Deyanraj Park, Flat No.G-6, Margai Galli, Shivaii Peth, Kalhapur ~ 416 012. Rajaram Lahu Patil, Aged 65 years, Occ, Reid. Sr. Postmaster Sanali HO, Resident of: Plot No.66, Gajanan Maharaj Colony, Nave Balinge, Taluk: Karaveer, Dist. Kolhapur - 416 010. te 22. Pramod Ramerss Kulkarni, Aged 63 years, Oce. Reid, SP Sindhudure Dn., R/o T-2 Laxmi Vijay Apptt. A Wing, Jilebi Chow, Brahmanpuri, Miraj ~ 416 410. 23. Bajarang Rajaram Sutar, Aged G2 vears, Occ. Retd. Sr. Postmaster Panall HO, esident of : 98, Anjali, Rama-Udhyan, Phase No.1, Near Hotel Parivar, Miraj-Pandharpur Road, Miraj - 416 410, 24, Appasaheb Kodda, Aged 99 years, Oce. SPOs, Sindhudure Dn., Resident of : 1449, Bhadgaon Road, Gadhingla} Distt : Rolhapur ~ 416 $02, 25. Mohan Shankar Ahirran, Aged 59 years, Oce. SSPOs Nashik, Resident of : Laxmi Vaihhay Apartment, Upnagar, Near Ichhamani Ganesh Jeraple, Nashik ~ 432 006, 26, Ulhas Dusane, Aged 59 years, Qee. SPOs Bhusawal, Resident of : 15, Rashmi, Gekul Postal Colony, _ Malegaon Road, Chalisgaon, Ss Dist. Jaleaon -- 424 101. bo aH Hari Naravanrao Saste, Aged 67 years, Occ. Retd, Dy. Direetor GPO Mumbai, Resident of « Postal Colony Kawa Road, Latur 413 S12. 28. Vithal Narsappa Choudhari, Aged 65 years, Oce. Retd. ASP CSD Nashik, Resident of : Shellal Road Sawarkar Chowk Udgir, Dist. Latur - 413 S17. Apt (By Advocate Shri DM, Shukl) OAB27/202 1 CLL ddrder pronounced on : Wht, 2033 Versus 1, The Union of India, through the Secretary Posts, Department - oF Posts, Osk Bhawan, New Delhi -- 110 001, a. Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi -- j 10 001, 3, The Secretary, DoPT, North Block, New Delhi -- 110 G01. a. The Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai ~ 460 O01. tft The General i Manager (Finance), Moaharashtra Cirele, O/o CPMG, | Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai ~ 400 00 1. » Respondents. | ( By Advocate Shri RLR, Shetty }. Order reserved on - £3,09.2023 ORDER Per : Dr Bhagwan. Sahai, Member (A)
Shri Ramesh Vithalrao Kulkami and 27 other retired officers and or working officers have filed this OJA. on 21. 12.2021, eeking teclaration that action of respondents to invoke hon-applicable Para-8 of Aanex-1 of MACP Scheme approved by the Government of India by DePT OM dated 19.05.2009 js not in order: setting aside impuened order 6 OA S27 /202 1 dated 24.11.2021 of CPMG, Department of Posts, Mumbai and direction to the respondents to grant them revised financial upgradation in view af provisions of para S under Annex-1 of MACP Scheme with Grade pay of Rs.4800/- as second Anancial upgradation and Grade Pay of Rs.S400/ as third financial uperedation fom 01.09. 2008 and consequent refixation of thelr pay / pension with all attendant benefits with effect from due dates applicable to each of them.
ae Summarized facts AS Hatrated by the ; applicants in LOA 2{a). When this OA. was filed, out of 28 applicants, 24 were senior citivens and had Superannuated from Government Servine whereas the remaining 4 were on the verve of refirenient, During their service the os applicants earns ad promotions based on departmental competigve examination to post of lnspector of Posts, Assistant t Superintendent of ~ Posts, and Postal Superintendents GrB, Grd. They have submitted identical representations to the respondents ta grant them revised financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme but ithas been deniéd te them | by order dated 24.11.2021 issued by the APMG (Staff) for Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai, 'Department o of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government ofIndia. They have given these details of bay Scales /' grade pays af various levels a S per recommendations of 5%, gh and Fe CPs.
Hierarchy of SPCPC ePCPC (1-01. 7eCPC (O1-01-. Posts {OLOL 1996 -- to 2006 to 2016 onwards)
---- 31.12.2005) SLI22015) _ Inspector 5500-175-9000 9300-34800 44900-99800 (Posts (Lower (PB-2) :
grade Non 2 fPhelr pres OP 4600 gazetted, and revised scale of | feeder cadre Post 3800-9000 (Pay sé for further. uparaded at par) level 7 Promotional with the -- pre-
posts oF ASPOs | revised scale of : ASP (6500- 10500) GP=4600 = . in PB-2) ASPOs 6500-200-10500 9300-34800 47600-105900 (Higher -- grade, (PB-3) GP=4800 garetted, (Pre-revised .
'Promotional post scale of 6500-/Pay level=$ fo Inspector) 10800 GP=4600 in PB-3} PS GrB/ 7300-250-12000 9300-34800 e700 | 117800 Supdt. (PB-2)} 'OP=8400 in ((Hisher -- grade, GP Rs. 4800 Gazetted, : | | iPR-2 Promotional post Pay level <9 to ASPY 2(b). Department of Posts, Government of India issued its OM on 34.10.2017 for implementation of 6o CPC pay scales from 01.01.2006 with the approval of Department of Expenditure revising / w reradine grade pay of Inspector of Posts from Rs.4200 to Rs.4600 in PB-2 but as a consequence of this upgradation, the next promotional post of ASPO was ae
a) arbitrarily placed in the same PB-2 and grade pay of Rs.4600/-, This ha:
oatised discrimination in senionty of the applicants who had earned grade g O4.827/2021 pay of Rs.4600/- in PR.2 after serving for Many years as Inspector of Posts, After implementation of gt CPC pay scales, Inspector of Posts on Promotion as ASPO in the nexi higher scale of pay and Similarly the ASPO on their promotion as Postal Sr; perintendent GrB, SPO GrA became eligible for grant of 28 financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, Accordinely they were p! laced | in pay scale in PB-2 of Rs. 9300- 34800 with prade pay of Rs.4600/- on promotion or completion of 12 and 24 years of regular service.
afe). DoPT, Government of India in pursuance to 68 OPC recommendations issued its OM on 19.03.2009 for implementation af the MACP Scheme with effect Son G1.09.2008 fee Broviding financial upgradation at the end of | 10%, 2m and 30 years of service. But due te anomaly in the OM of Department of Posts issued in 24.10.20] 7, the post of Inspector of Posts and promotional post of ASPOs became identical in the same PB-2 with same grade pay af Rs.4600/- from 01. O1.2006. This has caused serous disparity and hardship to the applicants, They expected that the respective respondents would grant higher grade pay of Rs.4800/- to ASPO and Rs.5400/- to PS GB on Preamotion or under 2 financial upgradation as per Clause 5 of Annex-] of the MACP Scheme. But this has not been dons, In the information obtained by the applicants under provisions of RT Act, 2005, it has been revealed that Se Scretary, LOLOL 3 OA B27 /2021 Department of Posts agreed with the legitimate claim of the applicants and vide letter dated 20.09.2021 recommended to Respondent No.3 ie. Secretary, DoPT for grant of revised grade pay under the MACP Scheme to them. However, in spite of reeommendation of ' Department of Posts the DoPT and other concer ned authorities took re egressive stand and arbitrarily did not agree with the recommendation of Department of Posts, Thus the claim of the applicants has been rejected vide letter dated 24.11.2021 by invoking Hon-apphicable provisions of Clause-8 of Annex- Lofthe MACP Scheme instead of following provisions of Clause-§, 2{d). This rejection of the applicants' claim amounts to impasition af pecuniary penalty on them and violation of spirit of the MACP Scheme. The provisions of Clause § of Annex-1 of the MACP Scheme been deliberately misinterpreted fa. the impugned order The intention behind para 8 of that achedule was to provide a se Sparate grade pay of Rs.S400% In PB-3 for Grd cadre, whereas the grade pay of Rs.S400% was also stipulated in PRD for Gr-B cadre:
aie}. The MACP Scheme envisages upgradation by grant of next higher grade pay and the applicanis are thus entitled for 2° Snancia! upgradation with grade pay of Re AS0Od. Therefore, they cannot be arbitrarily foreed to accept the 1® and 2" Gpaneial Uperadation in the same grade pay of Rs déOO/., The respondents have denied the applicants 10 OAS27/ 204 claim in view of grant of 3% increment in the same grade pay of Rs.4600/- in PB-2. This is abuse of power by them. Therefore, this O.A. has been filed.
3. Contentions of the applicants :
in the . tejoinder, written arguments on their behalf and during subn is of their counsel, the "applicants contended as under: 3(a). Para 8.1 under the Annex- L attached to th re OM of the MACP Scheme has clarified that grade pay of Rs.S400/- in PB-2 and grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 will be treated as xe Separate grade pay for the purpose of grant of Gnancial upgradation under the Sch deme. Thus the grade pay of Rs.5400/- is the last grade pay in PB-2 for Group-B posts whereas this ade pay in PB-3 is for Gr oup-A cadre at entry level. The MACP Scheme has further prowided that if a Government servant is already working with grade pay af Rs. 4600/ in PB-2, then he is Suiitled to n: ext financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, Then he/she would get financial upgradation in grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 and not in grade pay of Rs.6600/-. The vase of the applicants is different, they were placed in grade pay of Rs. 4600/- in PB-2 as Inspector of Posts, and if that frade pay is also for promotional post of ASPC in PB-3, then respondents could have invoked provisions of Clause-® attached with Annex-1, Since the post of Inspector af Posts and next Promotional post of ASPC were both 1 OA.827/2024 placed in grade pay of Rs.4600/- in PB-2 due to anomaly, the provisions of Clause-S of that Annex-] will be applicable to them:
Sib). the applicants' claim is sulstantiated from a copy of note of Department of Posts dated 26.09.2021, according to which, Secretary, Department of Posts had agreed with the claim of the applicants and, | therefore, recommended it to Secretary, DoPT to grant benefit of the MACE Scheme to the appl ic ants but it has been rejected by inveking nan applicable Clause-8 under that Annex-1;
Ste). the submission of the respondents is carréct that increment of 3% was granted to ASPOs promot ed ¢ on or after 01.01.2606 but not te those ASPOs who were promoted prior to 01.01.2006, The grant of 3% ime rement in the same grade pay is violation of provisions of Clause 3 of Annex-1 of the MACP Scheme:
Aa). the applicants accept that Para-8 of Annex-I'to the MACP 0 00 Scheme is ambiguous and is not happily worded and, therefore, it creates doubt Le. as Lf the promotions eamed in the hierarchy even of the same _ grade pay and same Pay Band shall also be counted for ACP/MACP Scheme. Thus if the promotional post carries the same grade pay, it will still he counted or treated as financial upgradation for the purpose of the MACP Scheme. This is a deliberate wrong interpretation by the respondents and it Is in conflict with the precept and foundation of the a3 OA.827/202 4 MACP Scheme;
3{e). -- the MACP Scheme basically is meant for financial upgradation to be given between 2 successive grade pays, but not in the 'Same grads pay in the same pay band mentioned in the schedule attached with CCS a Pay) Rules, 2008 and not to grade pay applicable on regular promotion. Therefors, after the promotion earned by the applicants as Inspector of Posts and ASPOs, thelr placement in the same grade pay of Rs.4600/- in same PB-2 will have to be ignored in view of provisions of Para 5 of Annex-1 of that OM of MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009 and next higher grade pay Fe Rs.4800/- and Rs. S400/- on completion of 30 years of service or [6 years of continuous service at the same level vil have to be granted to ensures equality ty and equal treatment to all Government employees;
3}. the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 is Invengruous and antithetical to other paragraphs of the MACP Scheme atid its spirit, Para > of Annex-] of MACP Scheme leaves he room for any ambiguity and this provision is to resolve the grievance of the applicants due to placement of the posts of Inspector of Posts and ASPOs in the same Pay Band-2 with the same erade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 on 01.01.2006. 'The applicants were promoted based on their merit in the competitive examination for the past of 5, hd OA.827/2021 Inspector of Posts and ASPOs. but even then both the posts have been placed in the same Pa ay Band and grade pay. Consequently even junior officials Working as Inspectors on 601.01 2006 who eauld not get Promoted as ASPO also became entitled io revised pay scale of PB-2 with Grade Pay af Re dsogs from 01.01.2006, Because of this, the promotions earned by the applicants as Inspector and ASPO became meonsequential, In Clause 2.2.11 of recommendation of the 6® CPC, i WAS Stated that grade pay will determine the status of a post with senior post being given higher grade pay 'Ng. the respondents have deliberately misinterpreted non.
applicable Para 8 of Annex-{ of the MLACP Scheme to derry the legitimate Bored & ised claim of the applicants. The claim has been rejected based on mere technical plea of misleading nature by cing non-applicability of Para 8 ef Annex-1 of the MACP Scheme. The DoPY has wrongly rejected the applicants' claim in spite of their recommendation by the Secretary, Department of Posts:
S{h}. the applicants have also relied on De ahi High Court deeision dated 09.05.2016 in case of Gove, oF NCT of Delhi & Aur. Vs. SK, Saraswat & Ors, O16 Latest Caselaw 3399 Def), in. which identical demand of applicants therein was upheld and de cision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tebonal in O.A.G87/9018 dated L4.11.2019 direc cting the respondents 1a OA.S27/2021 therein for granting similar relief as claimed by the present applicants:
Sti. the applicants have dente sd the allegations and averments mace by the respondents in their reply and claim that the respondents heve also certified legh umacy of claim of the applicants as the Secretary, Department of Posts had agreed with thelr claim and tevommended their case to DoPT on 20.09.2021 but the nodal department ie. DoPY did not agree with that proposal. The stand of the respondents 8 hot correct that the MACP Scheme in Para @ 1 is applicable only to Grade Pay of Rs.S400/- in PB-3 for new entrants in GrA cadres and it has to be treated separately for adjusting MACP benefits:
3p. the respondents have omitted their stand on the core issue that the matrix of the case of the 4 applicants is different, Rejection of their case by the DoPT at the level of Joint Secretary has arbitrarily invoked non-appiicable Clause-8 of Schedule-1 attached to the MACP Scheme thereby undermining the authority of Union Cabinet. The denial of the applicants' case is evasive stating that the € Department of Posts had formed only a tentative view on the issue and final decision has been taken by the DePT. The Reder cadre of Inspector of Posts and next promotional post of ASPO cannot be denied the benefit of Clause-5 of Annex-l af MACP Scheme, The respondents have wrongly not admitted that higher post ASPO and Superintendent of Posts are distinctly eligible 45 OA. 827/2021 for higher grade pay of Rs.4800 and Rs S400/-;
Stk). when the MACE Scheme envisages upgradation by grant of next higher grade pay, then the applicants' claim cannot be denied because fF prant of 324 increment 'i the same grade pay on promotion as ASPO, The respondents have attempted to mislead and distort the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Others Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) § SCC 421. In that decision the issue was whether the MACP Scheme entitles financial upgradation in the next grade or graile pay in the next hierarchy of pay band. The Supreme Court has held that for Hnancial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, an employee would be entitled only for a next higher grade pay and not for next higher pay band:
3d}. if the stand of the respondents about denial of claim of the applicants is correct, then they should not have taken a different stand under the 7" CPC pay seales with higher post of ASPO and.
Superintendent of Posts placed in higher grade pay. As per Rule 3(7) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, revised pay structure in relation to any post specified in column 2 of the serial no.{8 under first schedule means the pay band and grade pay specified in columns (5) and (©), Therefore, for granting financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, it has to be alieast in the higher grade pay in the hierarchy of pay bands but the respondents have granted financial upgradation to the applicants in the 1S DA.B27/2021 same grade pay in the same pay band.
Therefore, this O.A. should be allowed by granting the legitimate claim of the applicants, Contentions of the respondents:
In the reply, surrejoinder and written arguments and during hearing of their counsel, the tontentions- of the respondents are as under: 3 {mn}. the short issue in the OLA. is alleged grievance of the applicants about action of the respondents in invoking applicability of tentatively agreed with the claim of the applicants and a proposal to explore the feasibility of redressing the grievance of the applicants in the OL.A. was recommended it on 20.09.2021 but the DoPT is the nodal department to regulate the MACP Scheme and the proposal was not p= agreed to by the Nadal Department (DoPT) under the MACP Scheme:
_ Stn). the proposal of Department of Posts submitted ta the DoPT Was not explicitly based on the provisions of the MACP Scheme and, therefore, it did not have legitimacy for claim of the applicants. The DoPT interprets and regulates the MACE Scheme as a whole. 'This scheme provides a safety net to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship ficed by the employees due to lack of adequate LLL 17 OAS27/2021 promotional avenues. But the applicants in the OA. were not slagnated in their career advancement and ey have enjoyed all perks and perquisites on promotions to the next hierarchical post of ASPO and scheme are duly applicable to the applicants and violetion of these provisions may lsad to wider ramifications. They have also enclosed a eapy of DoPT Note dated 15.17.2602) by which the pronosal of.
Department of Posts was rejected:
aie}. =. sas per Recruitment Rules, both posts of Inspector and ASPO cary the same grade pay from 01.01.2006 based on the 6" CPC pay scales. The earlier Q.A4 A16/ 2021 was Hled before this Bench by retired Shri Urban PC. Tauro, and other serving officers praying for direction to grant financial upgradation to ASPO as per Clause 5 under Annex-1 of MACP Scheme. This Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at admission stage ilrecting the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants as per applicable provisions of relev fant rules and instructions by passing a reasoned and speaking or der. Their representations were considered by the respondents as per relevant provisions of the MACP Scheme as well reply of DoPT dated 15.11.2021 to the Department of Posts clarifying with reference to Para-8 of Annex.] of DoePT OM on the MACP Scheme which stipulates that promotions earned in the post carrying same grade 18 OAB27/2021 pay in the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall he counted for the purpose of MACP:
3{p). the posts of Inspector of Posts and ASPO exist as distinct cadres in hierarchy with separate set of Reerujiment Rules, although the grade pay of both these cadres is identical as per 6" CPC pay scales, Since as per the Recruitment Rules, under promotional hierarchy of ASPO for Inspectors of Posts, both the Jeeder grade of Inspector of Posis and promotional rade of ASPO have been placed in the identical grade pay of Rs.4600/- and continue ta be in hierarchy and those posts have not been merged in single grade with effect fom 01.01.2006. Benefits of promotions whether received prior to 01.01.2006 or afer 01 01.2006 are to be counted as an offset in terms ot Para 8 of Annex-i altached with DoPT OM dated 19.05.2009 on the MACP Scheme. Therefore, the "promotions received by the applicants 'trom Inspector of Posts to ASPOQ and Postal Superintendents carmot be ignored while determining their eligibility for further grant of MACP benefits. The applicants were in the grade of Inspector of Posts aud they have been promoted as ASPO and BS, or granted 2°° ACP either prior to 01.01.2006 or thereafter upto 31.08.2008, hence they are not entitled ta financial uperadstion under the MACP Scheme by ignoring the promotion earned or 2e¢ yaacp benefit received. Therefore, the reasons mentioned jn Pata-S of Annex-1 of LLL LLL cd 18 OA S27 /2024 MACP Scheme do not apply te the case of the applicants. Since the applicants in O.A.416/2031 have already availed of financial upgradation under ACP / MACP Scheme, they are not entitled to firther upgradation by Ignoring their promotions. Therefore, their claim was not accepted by the Department of Posts and they were replied accordingly by Respondent Nod on 24.) L202 Ts Aig)... -. the contention of the applicants in Para 4.8.2 of the O.A. i not correct and it is an exaggeration" The MACP Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay as given in Section I, Part A of the first schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008, in cass no promotion has been eared by the employee during the period. 'The applicants in the present O.A. were not stagnated during their career, therefore, the provisions of Para-8 of Schedule attached with MACP Scheme are duly applicable to them and, therefore the O.A. deserves to be dismissed, Applicants contention in Para 4.9 of the O.A. is not correct. There is no misinterpretation of any of the prowl isions of the MACP Scheme by the respondents. The Department of Pasts in their letter dated 25.10.2018 has already clarified that the Asstt.
Supermtendent of Posts carries higher duties and responsibilities than those af the Inspector of Posts and as such 3% fixation benefit as per CCS (Revised Pay} Rules, 2008 is available to them on promotion as ASPO;
220 GA B27/202 1 Sir). Para 8 of Annex-1 to the MACP Scheme has clearly at 'Sipulated that promotions earned in-the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per the Recruitment Rules shal! be counted for the purpose of the MACP. Therefore, the rejection of the applicants claint is fully justified. Fer the purpase of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, the promations earned by the applicants from Inspector of Posts to ASPO and then to Postal Superintendents cannot he ignored, Therefore, there is no merit in the clai ofthe applicants in this OLA.;
3{s). with respect to the contention of the applicants in Para 4.11.2 ofthe OLA. that as per note of Department of Posts it had agreed with the legitimate claim of the applicants and recommended their case on 20.09, 2021, it is clarified that since the DoPT is the nodal department to regulate the MACP Scheme, the proposal io explore the feasibility to redress the claim of the applicants dn the earlier O.A 4316/2021 was submitted to it In which the applicants in the present OLA. were also among those applicants. However, that proposal was not agreed to by the nodal Sepeaent DoPT in view of the existing provisions of the MACP Scheme as explained in their note dated ISAL.2021, The proposal submitted to the DoPT was nat explicitly on the provisions of the MACP scheme and, therefore, there is no legitimacy in claim of the : applicants;
Sif), since there were different pay scales for the post of inspector ZL OA B27/2021 of Posts and Asstt. Supdt. GF Post Offices before 01.01.2006 as per 5° CPC, the applicants were promoted as ASPO before 01.01.2006 and were granted fixation of pay with grant of notional increment in the respective pay scales. The applicanis did not get stagnated during their career advancement and thus there was no justification for grant of financial >.
upgradation alter their promotion as ASPO and Postal Superintendents;
3x). _the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mohanan Nair has -
held that the MACP Scheme is sacrosanct and its interpretation is best left to the DoPT in case of any clarification being required. 'Thus there is the approval of the Supreme Court to the fact that DoPT is the final authority on interpreting and issuing any clarification on the MACP Scheme. The
-elarification issued by the DoFT on. 1s 11.2021 is final and it has to be accepted by all the Departments:
- 3&).. the-attempt of the applicants in the O.A. ig to seek pay revision for the past of ASPO solely on the ground that the feeder cadre of Inspector of Posts also has been granted the same grade pay of Rs.4600/-. However, this is a matter to be decided only by the Executive based aon recommendations of the Expert Bodies of the administration and R e 'not by the Courts and Tribunals who do not possess such expertise. The contention of the applicants in thelr written submission that Section Officer and Joint Secretary level officers in DoPT have played mischief in 22 . OA.827/2024 rejecting the proposal of Department of Posts is qtite surprising. The officers in the hierarchy in the DoPT act on behalf of administrative head as per the manual of office procedure. Therefore, the position explained in the DoPT Note of 19.11.2021 is correct as per the provisions of the MACP Scheme and the claim of the applica ais In this regard has no basis; 3G). the applicants have misconeeived the MACP Scheme which does not envisage grant of relief under # bey ond entitlement by way of promotion. Ifthe demand of the applicants is agreed, then those who are promoted from the post of Inspector of Posts in grade pay of Rs.4600/- to promotional post of ASPO in the same grade of Rs 4600/- with 334 benefit which is mors than increase in the pay of the promotional post, benefit of increment would end UR being more than the MACP upgradation in grade pay of Rs.4600/., The applicants were well aware of _their promotion {rom Inspector of Posts to ASPOs and BS. and they willingly accepted the promotions. New in this 0.4. they are seeking pay revision for the post of ASPO which is beyond jutisdiction of the Tribunal. The applicants have also misoo matrucd Para 36 of the Supreme Court decision in case of Mohanan Nair 3{x). under 5© CPC pay scales, the Inspector of Posts was placed in pay scale of Re.5500-9000 and ASPOs were in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. During 6° CPC both these p pay seales were merged and 23 OA.827/2021 brought in the same PB-2. Therefore, the OLA. has no merit, it should be dismissed, &. Analvais and conclusions :
We have perused the O.A. memo along with its Annexes, reply filed by the respondents, rejoinder of applicants, case laws cited by the parties and considered the written notes of areuments advanced by the counsels for the applicants and respondents. slbonttaii ty 4fah The applicants are appieved of order of Asstt. Post Master General (Staff), office of CPMG, Mumbai dated 24.11.2021 by whicl thelr claim was rejected for grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme by ignoring promotion to ASPO and PS. cadres. Therefore, they have sought grant of grade pay of Rs.4800- as 2nd financial upgradation and of arade pay of Rs.S400/- as 3rd Rnancial upgradation irom 01.09.2008 and consequent refixation of pay / pension.
4(b}. Their main contention ts that as provided under Annex-1 attached to DoPT OM dated 19.05.2009 on Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for Central Government civilian employees, Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs. S400/- in PB-3 are treated as separate grade pay for grant of financial upgradation. Since the posts of Inspector of Posts and ASPOs were placed in the PB-2 with grade pay 'of Rs.4600/- due to anomaly, provisions of Clause 5 of that Annex are aA OA S27 / 2024 applicable to them. and not of Clause 8. However, this claim not justified, dic). Their further contention is also correct that Para 8 of Annex- 1 attached to MACP Scheme of DoPT OM is ambiguous and, therefore, if creates doubt about the promotions same ed] in the hierarchy even the same grade pay and same pay band shall be counted for ACP/MIACE Scheme. This is not a wrong interpretation of provisions by the respondents.
-- The. respondents have denied the above mendoned contentions and claims of the applicants. Their stand seems correct that secretary af Department of Posts had only entatively apreed with the claim ofthe applicants and a pronosal was submitted to DoPT to explore T i * feasibuity of redressing the grievanoe but DoPT as the nodal department to regulate the MACP Scheme, that proposal of Department of Posts was rejected on 20.09.2021. Since the proposal of Department af Posts submitted to. DoPT was not explicitly based on provisions of MACP oo 20> Scheme, it dig not have legitimacy for claim of the applicants, did). The stand of the respondents if correct that the DoPT interprets and regulates the MACP Scheme as a w Thole, which provides a safety net to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and ha ardshin faced by the employees due to lack af adequate promotional avenues ede The applicants in the O.A. have not stagnated In thelr career advancement and they have enjoyed all the promotions to the next hisrarchical post of 25 OA.S27/2021 ASPOs and PS. Therefore, provisions of Para 8 of Schedule lof the MAC? Scherne are duly applicable to their case. $(e}, There are separate Recruitment Rules for the posts of Inspectors and ASPOs. These are the Posts & Telesraphs (nspector of Past Offices, Inspectors of Railway Mail Service and "Inspectors (Uniforms) Recruitment Rules, (977). As per those rules, Inspector of _ Posts was placed in pay scale of Rs.425-700, and this post was a selection past. As per Posts and Telegraphs Assistant Superintendents of Post OMices and Rail Mail Service Recruitment Rules, 1977, the ASPOs were placed In the pay scale of Rs.$50-900, that post is non-selection post. Thus from the year 1977 pay scales for these 2 posts Le. Inspector of Posts and ASPOs have been different and ASPO is a promotional post for Inspector of Posts. Similarly, the post of Postal Superintendent is ¢ promotional post for ASPO.
af). AS per Department of Posts, Postal Superintendent/Past Masters Gr.B* Recruitment Rules, 1987, their pay scale was of Rs.2000- S500 and these are selection posts. These rules were amended in the year
284. Thus as per the separate Recruitment Rules, there is hierarchy of pasts consisting of Inspector of Posts, ASPOs and Postal Superintendents.
As per recommendation of the 6° CPC, there was no merger of any of these pasts. The representations of the applicants were duly considered as per 26 OA.827/2024 provisions of MACP Scheme and reply of DoPT datelS,11.2021 was received, based on which the Department of Posts has issued the order dated 24.11.2021. The reply of the DoPT clearly stated that as per Para § of Amex-] of DoPT OM on MACP Scheme dated I 9.05,.20089, promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per the Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose of MACP. As per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, Inspectors and ASPOs were in the same Pay Band Le. PB-2 but because of promotion of Inspector of Pasts to the post of ASPOs in promotional hierarchy and subsequently to the post of Postal Superintendent, those promotions have to be counted for the purpose of MACP and cannot be ignored while determining their eligibility for grant of additional MACP benefits, The applicants in the cadre of Inspector of Posts have heen promoted as ASPOs or granted 2° MACP either prior to 04.01.2006 or thereafter upte 31.08.2008, Hence they are not entitled ts any additional financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and the reasons mentioned in Para 3 of Annex-1 of the MACP Scheme are not applicable to them.
4g). The submission of the respondents is also correct that there is ho mis-interpretation of any provisions of the MACP Scheme by them.
As clarified by the Department ef Posts in lever dated 23.10.2018, ASPOs carry bigher duties and responsibilities than those of the Inspector 2? OA.S27/2021 af Posts and, therefore, 3% fixation benefit as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 Is applicable to them on promotion as ASPOs which is more than grant of MACP benefit. Therefore, rejection of claim of the applicants by the respondents is filly justified. 4its}. The submission of the respondents is also correct that as per Supreme Court decision m case of Mohanan Nair dated 05.03.2020 in a | _fumber of Civ! Appeals, it has been held that DoPT is the final authority on imerpreting and issuing clarifications on the MACP Scheme. Therefore, the clarification issued by the DoPT on 15.11.2021 is final and has to be accepted by all the Departments. The applicants have mis- conceived the provisions of the MACP Scheme which does not envisage grant of relief beyond entitlement by way of promotion,
4). To develop clarity on the above issues about applicability of Para $ and Para § of Armex-1 of DoPT OM dated 19.05, 2009. on. MAC P soo eosenainne Scheme, the factual position emerges as fnllows:
As per Para 7.6.14 of recommendation of 6° CPC (relied upon by the applicants themselves), considering the demand of Inspectors of Department of Posts for higher pay scale of Rs.G500-10500 on par with Ingpecters and analogous post in CBDT / CBEC as well as Assistants in Central Secretariat Service, the Comitiission recommended mercer of those pre-revised pay scale of Rs.S500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500. This 28 OA S27/2021 automatically brought fhapector of Posts on par with Assistants of CSS and Inspectors of other analogous post of C BDICBEC. As per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, both these pay scales i.e. Rs.S500-8000 and Rs. 6500-10500 were brought in the PR-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with prade pay ofRs.42004. Thus for the post of Inspector of Posts, the recommer dation of the 6" CPC as well as on acceptance of those recommendations, as per CCS (Revised Pay} Rules, 2008 implemented from 01.01.2006, the Grade Pay for Inspector of Pasts was only Rs.4200/..
4(j). For the post of ASPOs, the 6" CPC recommended in Para 7.614 next higher pay scale of Rs. 7450-1 L500 with grade pay of Rs.4600/-. As per the accepted recommendation and provisions of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules. 2008, for ASPOs i in PB-2 the pay seals granted was _ Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4600/-; "Bor the next hierarchical post of Postal Superintendents, the 6™ CPO alsa 'Tecommendsd pay seale of Rs.8700-34800/- with grade pay of Rs 4800/- and it was accepted as per the CCS (Revised Pay} Rules, 2008 with the pay scale in PB-2 was Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/. 'Thus for the post of ASPOs neither 6th CPC recommended grade pay of Rs.4800- nor it was.
provided under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, 4(k. Subsequently by OM of Departement of Posts dated | 24.10.2017, grade pay of Inspectors of Post has been revised to Rs. 4600/-
OOLOTED?
29 OM B27/2021in PB-2. This order was issued in compliance to order of Ermakulam Bench of CAT dated 16.10.2015 in O.A.280/2013 fled by ALL India Association of Hhepeetwe af Posts and ASPO and others Vs. Union of india. However, this grade pay was sanctioned at a tne when accepted recommendations of 6" CPC had already been implemented as per CCS (Revised Pay), 2008 from 01.01.2006 and from 61.01.2016 accepted recommendations of even 7® CPC have been implemented. However, inspite of raat of this grade pay of Rs.4600/- for Inspector of Pasts, the post of Inspector of Posts and ASPOs have not been merged, they still exist as separate posts in the promotional hierarchy and the Inspector of Posis have been getting promotion as ASPOs and subsequently ASPOs have been getting promoted as Postal Superintendents or received MACP beret.
ai}. . MACP Scheme is a compensating arrangement of financial...
upgradation lor those employees who inspite of being assessed as fit for promotion from time to tme could not get promoted because of non- availability of promotional avenues. For not getting promoted over 10 years, 20 years or 30 years in service, then such employees became eligible for 1°, 2" and 3™ financial upgradation under the MACP Schem The benellt of pay fixation available at the time of regular promotion is aiso allowed at the time of financial upgradation under the Scheme by 30 O8.827/2021 raising pay by 3% in the Pay Band and Grade Pay drawn before the upgradation. In case of the applicants in the O.A., no such situation Oe prevailed. They have got regularly promoted to higher pay scales from time to time. For example Shri Ramesh V. Kulkarni, Applic cart Nel in the OLA. joined as Postal Assistant on O7.07.1980. got promoted as Inspector af Posts from sat 990, got firther promoted as ASPO fram 1S.11.1999, then he got 3° MACP benefit from 19.11.2009 with Grade Pay of Rs.d800/- and thereafter he got further promoted as Postal Superintendent Gr/B' from 25.10.2018. These details show that this applica ant got 2 promotions and one financial upgradation with in 30 YSars of his service and then got further pramutted as Postal Saperiniendent Gr'B', Thus in the case of the similarly placed present applicants there has not been any stagnation in their service career, they have got regular promotions from time to time in the higher pay scales In the promotional hierarchy and im addition they also received financial upgradation under the MACP. Therefore, the stand of the respondents is correct that the applicants in the O.A. were not stagnated and have not suffered any logs of promotions from time to Hime. When the applicants got promoted, they have also received pay fixation beneNt equal to 3% rise in pay and grade pay. When they did not suffer any stagnation, go! promoted from time to time and alse gat nancial aperadation i in between and in addition Bi OA.8272021 39% rise in pay fixation, then there is no cause of action for them. to file this OLA. claiming grant of pvo additional financial upgradations and that tou from same date Le. O1,09, 2008.
isn). The allegation of the applicants In the O.A. against the respondent Department of Posts and DoPT are baseless. As per Para 9 of OM dated 19.05.2009, any interpretation'clarificatio of doubt as to the given oS scape and meaning of the provisions ofthe MACP Scherne shall bs by the Department of Personnel and 'Training (Establishment-D). Therefore, the reply to the tentative proposal of Department of Posts was with approval of Joint Secretary (Establishment-D), DoT who is incharge of the Establishment Division of the Dopt. Therefore, that reply was by the correct authority in the DoPT as per the stipulations under Para S under Annex-] to DoPT Py dated 19.05.2009 and the MACE en eee 4{n). The last promotion of the applicant not as Postal Superintendent was in Qetober, 2013, but they have fled this O.A. 'belate sally on 21.12.2021. Thus this O.A. also suffers from delay and laches. For this they have filed M.A.837/2021 for condoning the delay claiming that thelr grievance arose in 2017 after the Department of Posts eranted the Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- to Inspector of Posts burt this erant of 'Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to Inspector of Posts has resulted fn GA.827/2024 QW fad x discrimination against the Assistant Superintendents of Post Offices and Postal Superintendent Gr'B' cadres. They have also claimed that they have a regular cause of action for grant of the additional MACP benefit.
_8fo}. Caselaw relied upon by the applicants on the decision of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.687/2018 dated 14.11.2019 in ease of Shalini Nagi and. others Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Science and Technology and others. The ayplicants in that O.A. were. employees of Survey of India and grant of MACP benefit with Grade Pay -- of Rs. 4600/- was reversed as it had been granted by ignoring promotions fed ~ received by the applicants therein. But the facts of the case were different 'there. It was a case of merger of posts of Assistants and Office Superintendents and both of them were brought in same Pay Band and same Grade Pay. But in the present case there was no merger of posts of Inspector of Posts and ASPOs, these posts have continued as separate 'posts In promotional hierarchy and the grade pay of Rs.d200/- and Rs.4600% wag maintained separately for the post of Inspectors and ASPOs after implementation of the 6° CPC through CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and even afler getting 2 or 3 promotions along with MACP 3 benefit the applicants have remained in separate hierarchical post.
In the decision of Delfi Hich Court in Writ Petition ol No.O266/2018 dated 09.05.2016 (Govt. OF NCT & Others Vs. Sak tye tel Q a oo iw Bt wi <3 Sod te Saraswat & Others. This High Court decision upheld earlier decision of C.AT., Principal Bench in O.A.263972012 holding that Principals of Schools and Education Officers under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT, Delhi were entitled for MACP benefits as per rules, "The facts in that case were also different. In that the directly recruited Principals of Secondary Schools and Education Officers had stagnated ce:
and the main 'issue considered was whether they were entitled for MACP....
benefit as per rules when they could not get promoted and it was held that the applicants therein were entitled fe benefit of MACP Scheme on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service when they had remained in same Grade Pay.
dip). The stand of the respondents. as explained in their contentions is correct that ag provided under Para 8.of Annex-1 af DoPT post carrying the same grade pay fe the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose of MACE, Therefore, inspite of same grade pay In PB-2 for the post of Inspector of Posts as well as ASPOs, the applicants have earned regular promotions in the promotional hierarchy, From the post of Postal Assistants, etc, they got promoted as Inspector of Posts, thereafter they got promoted as ASPOs and subsequently prameted as Postal Superintendent Gr."B' or received tet oJ aa. OAB27/2023 MACP benefit, Therefore, these promotions received by them in the promotional hierarchy as per the Recruitment Rules have to be counted for the purpose of MACP Scheme and after having earned these promotions, they are not entitled for grant of MACP benefit of grae pay af Rs.4800/- as 2° financial upgradation and grade pay of Rs.Sd00/- as 3° financial upgradation from the same date ie. From 01.09, 2008, when the MACP Scheme was implemented.
4(q). In view of the above explained position under the provisions of MACP Scheme, and CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 the applicants have no case under Para 3 under Annex-lio MACP Scheme. Consequently the O.A. has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The O.4. is dismissed. No casts.
(DrBhadwin Sahai) (Iustiéé MG. Sewlikar) Member (A) Member GH.
EH.