Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Chaitan Mohanty vs East Coast Railway on 17 December, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022
Reserved on 16.12.2025 Pronounced on 17.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Chaitan Mohanty, aged about 59, S/o- Late
Jagabandhu Mohanty, at present working
as Sr. Travelling Inspector of Accounts in
the office of the PFA, ECOR, RailSadan
Chandrasekharpur permanent resident of
At- Kuanarsar, Po-Panchpara, Ps-
Chandabali, Dist-Bhadrak, Pin-756133.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through It's
Chairman and CEO, Railway Board, Rail
Bhavan, NewDelhi-110001.
2. GM, ECOR, At-Rail Sadan, Po-Mancheswar
Railway Colony, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-751017
3. PCPO,ECOR, At-Rail Sadan, Po-
Mancheswar Railway Colony,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751017
4. PFA, ECOR, At-Rail Sadan, Po-Mancheswar
Railway Colony, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-751017.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. T.Rath, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2025.12.17
09:45:45 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022
For the respondents : Mr. R.S.Pattnaik, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The case of the applicant is that on 26.07.1988, he was appointed as Accounts Clerk, Grade-I/JAA in pay Scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040/-, which, on restructuring of cadre was revised to Rs. 1,400-2,600/- w.e.f. 13.05.1990. On 14.08.1995, he was promoted to TIA in scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/- (4th CPC) and on 25.09.1998 he was promoted to Sr. TIA in pay scale of Rs. 6,500- 10,500/-. The pay scale of Rs. 6,500-9,000/- was replaced to Rs. 7450-11,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which was revised to Rs. 9,300- 34,800/- with GP Rs. 4800/- on PB-II w.e.f. 01.01.2006. On 22.09.2008 vide RBE No. 124/2008, the posts of TIA and Sr. TIA were merged together.
2. The Govt. of India, as a matter of policy, brought into field the beneficial scheme of MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008, in place of ACP, providing inter alia grant of three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service in case of RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 stagnation of an employee, which was adopted and implemented in respect of railway employees vide RBE No. 101/2009 in which it was also provided that promotions earned/upgradations granted under ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carries the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the 6th CPC shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPs. Vide order dated 15.03.2010, applicant was granted 3rd financial upgradation to PB-II Rs. 9300-34,800/- (Level-9) GP Rs. 5400/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008.
3. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, treating the restructuring of the cadre of Jr. Accounts Assistant to Account Assistant as promotion, an employee of the railways was denied the benefit of financial upgradation under ACP, which was challenged by him before the CAT, Chennai Bench in OA No. 335/2007 (V.Venkatraman Vs UOI & Ors). The Chennai Bench vide order dated 26.08.2008 held that restructuring of post in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, revised to 1400-2600 was not RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 promotion and it was only revision of pay on account of restructuring of post and, accordingly directed the respondent railway to grant the said applicant the financial upgradation under ACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.10.1999. The respondents department challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P(C) No. 21112/2009, which was dismissed on 19.10.2010 and upheld/confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Writ Petition (Civil) CC No. 9422/2011 dated 04.01.2012. The respondent railway implemented the aforesaid order granting the financial upgradation to Sri V.Venkatraman.
4. Similarly, one Sri Parameswar Biswal working as SSO, (Accounts) in E.Co.Rly BBSR was denied the financial upgradation treating the replacement of scale on restructuring as promotion. He challenged the said action of the respondents before this Bench in OA No. 247/2014 and this Bench vide order dated 25.07.2016 directed the respondents to grant the applicant third financial upgradation under the MACP treating the RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 restructuring of post in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, revised to 1400-2600 as revision of pay due to restricting and not tantamounting to promotion in light of the decision of the coordinate Madras Bench of the Tribunal, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondent-railway challenged the said order of this bench before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) NO. 5898/2017, which was dismissed on 25.04.2018 and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 29243/2018 dated 30.03.2022.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has also stated that similar OA No. 381/2014 was filed by Sri Rabinarayan Satpathy, which was allowed by the Bench in the same line as in the earlier case and the respondents department having failed in W.P(C) No. 15109/2018 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa carried the matter to Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 8205/2023, which was also dismissed on 24.03.2023. Another OA No. 169/2014 (Raghunath Parida Vs UOI) was also allowed in similar way.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant submitted representation dated 09.07.2018 for granting him third financial upgradation ignoring the revision of pay on restructuring followed by reminder dated 09.11.2022. It is stated that since no action was taken, applicant filed this OA seeking direction to respondents to grant him third financial upgradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 25.07.2018 or from any other date as admissible under the MACP Scheme by ignoring the so called promotion from JAA to AA by treating the third financial upgradation granted to the applicant as second financial upgradation and, as a consequence, to revise and refix the pay of the applicant and pay him the financial arrears retrospectively.
7. The applicant has also filed MA No. 374/2024 invoking Section 23 of the AT Act, 1985 to condone the delay in filing this OA belatedly. According to the applicant/Ld. Counsel for the applicant, when by judicial pronouncement it was held that replacement scale providing on restructuring cannot be treated as promotion thereby entitling financial upgradation by ignoring RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 the replacement scale as promotion in successive cases, the respondents as a model employer ought to have granted the similar benefits to the applicant to eradicate the discrimination between one homogenous group of employees, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C.Sharma Vs UOI & Ors, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3588, and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in UOI & Ors Vs Girish Chandra Kabat & Anr. in W.P(C) No. 13677/2018 dated 20.07.2022. It has also been stated that one Sri Sailendra Kumar Sahoo filed OA No. 379/2018 claiming financial upgradation under ACP after 18 years of his entitlement of the said benefits. This Bench vide order dated 17.03.2021 dismissed the matter on the ground of delay and latches, which was challenged by the applicant Sri Sailendra Kumar Sahoo before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 34591/2021 and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 01.12.2022 quashed the order of this bench by observing that since the claim of the financial upgradation under ACP has already been adjudicated on merits in earlier decision against RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 which SLP (C) No. 11040/2013 filed by the respondents was dismissed, there is no valid and justifiable reason on the part of the CAT, Cuttack Bench to reject the claim of the said petitioner on the ground of delay and latches. Hence, the applicant has prayed to condone the delay and direct the respondents to grant him the third financial upgradation as per the decision referred to above.
8. Respondents filed counter opposing and contesting the case of the applicant both on merit as well as on limitation. According to them, it is a settled principle of law that a settled thing should be unsettled after a long lapse of time, but a pregnant one, the applicant chosen to sleep like Rip Van Wrinkle and got up from slumber at his own leisure for some reason, which is fathomable to him only but such fathoming of reasons by one shape is not countenance in law since anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer is sine qua non, which is exactly the case in hand because the applicant submitted representation on 10.07.2018 and, thereafter on 09.11.2022 claiming relief RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 relating to the period from 26.07.1988 and from 01.09.2018. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another Vs Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 179, the respondents prayed for dismissal of this OA being hit by law of limitation.
9. Insofar as merit is concerned, the respondents/Ld. Counsel for the respondents have taken the stand that in terms of the rules [para 171 IREM Vol.I and para 171 (5)] appointment from the post of Jr. Account Assistant (JAA) in pay of Rs. 1200-2040/- to Accountant Assistant Rs. 1400-2600/- is a promotion, which can be offset against financial upgradation under MACP. In the case of V.Venkatraman (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP No. 9422/2011 on 04.01.2012 simplisitter under Article 136 of Constitution of India without laying down any law and, thus, it does not mean that Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Lower Court because when the court merely dismisses Special Leave Petition without going into the RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 merit of the matter, it does not qualify as a binding precedence and to fortify such stand they have taken the recourse of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kunhayammed & Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr, (2000) 6 SCC 359, and V.M.Salgaokar & Bros (P) Ltd Vs CIT, (2000) 5 SCC
373. Hence, according to them, the decision in the case of V.Venkatraman (supra) has no application to the case in hand, especially, when the said decision was rendered by the CAT, Madras Bench/Hon'ble High Court of Madras without taking into cognizance of the statutory provision that appointment from JAA to AA is a promotion and is offset against the financial upgradation. Similar was the stand taken insofar as decisions rendered by this Bench in the cases of Sri Parameswar Biswal Sri Rabinarayan Satpathy (supra) and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. According to the respondents, the applicant while working as Sr. TIA retired from service in the afternoon of 28.02.2023. He was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- w.e.f. 26.07.1991 RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 not by virtue of holding the post of Clerk Grade-I (redesignated as JAA) but on promotion to higher functional post of Accounts Assistant as per RBE No. 158/1987 and RBE No. 222/1987 having fulfilled the conditions while he was continuing in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-.
11. In RBE Nos. 158/1987 and 222/1987, the Railway Board while introducing higher functional scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- in accounts cadre to the extent of 80% of the post of Clerk Grade-I in pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- also laid down that staff in Grade 1200-2040/- will be eligible for promotion to higher grade, after minimum three years service in pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- having passed Appendix-IIA Examination. The eligible staff promoted will also have their pay fixed under Rule 2018-B [FR 22(C)]- R.I. Therefore, since change of scale of pay from 1200- 2040/- to 1400-2600/- is a promotion, the same was rightly counted as offset of financial upgradation. Therefore, there being no infraction or infirmity in the decision, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022
12. Ld. Counsel for the applicant taking us through the decided matters has submitted that the points raised by the respondents in the counter are obsolete and therefore, this matter is fully covered by the earlier orders more so when the respondents did nto dispute the fact that the scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- was upgraded to 1400-2600/- by way of restructuring.
13. We have considered the submissions and perused the records.
14. Although we find the stand of the respondents that this OA suffers from delay and laches, but, on the face of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 01.12.2022 in W.P.(C) 34591/2021 (Sailendra Kumar Sahoo Vs UOI & Ors.) holding that since the issue has already been adjudicated on merit by the Hon'ble High Court and has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no justifiable reason on the part of the CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to reject the claim of the applicant on the ground delay and laches, the point of delay raised by the respondents is RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 bound to fall to ground and accordingly the said point is overruled. Hence, MA No. 374/2024 stands allowed.
15. Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, we may profitably note that if there is a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on the point having territorial jurisdiction over this Tribunal, it would be binding, as has been held by the Full Bench of CAT (Principal Bench) in OA No.555/2001 in (Dr. A.K.Dawar v/s. Union of India & Ors.) which has been reiterated by the Full Bench by the Full Bench of CAT (Cuttack Bench) in No. O.A. 260/00169/2014 dated 19.10.2023 [Raghunath Parida, -Vs-Union of India & Ors]. We find that the view taken by the Madras Bench and also by this Bench that revision of pay scale of 1200-2040/- to 1400-2600/- due to restructuring is not a promotion was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, thus, became a binding precedence and, therefore, the stand of the respondents that since the SLP was simply dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the decision of the Madras Bench and of this RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.17 09:45:45 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00745 of 2022 Bench cannot have any effect does not sound to judicial appeal so as to take a different view in this matter.
16. The net result of the discussions made above is that the respondents shall have to consider the case of the applicant for 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme by not treating the restructuring of pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to 1400-2600/- as promotion, of course, subject to fulfilling the other conditions by the applicant stipulated in the MACP Scheme. In such an event, the applicant shall be entitled to the arrear salary and the consequential effect on his pension and pensionary benefits paid to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. In the result, the OA stands allowed. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.12.17
09:45:45 +05'30'