Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ganpat Lal Pareek vs M/O Railways on 30 March, 2026
1
OA No. 359/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 359/2016
Order reserved on: 27.02.2026
Date of order: 30.03.2026
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Ganpat Lal Pareek S/O Shri Banshi Lal Pareek, Aged About 45 Years,
R/O House No. 999, Pareek Sadan, Street No. 4, Aadarsh Colony, Chopra
Farm, Dadwada, Kota Junction Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota
Division, WCR.
2. Papendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Roshan Lal Sharma, Aged About 41
Years, R/O Railway Quarter No. 616 L/B, 40 Qtr Railway Colony, Gangapur
City, Sawai Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur
City, Kota Division, WCR.
3. Naresh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Kedar Nath Sharma, Aged About 44
Years, R/O C/O Vishnu Bhandari, Sanjay Colony, Ganagapur City, Sawai
Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur City, Kota
Division, WCR.
4. Khushi Ram Sharma S/O Shri Permanand Sharma, Aged About 44
Years, R/O Bunglow No. 110/L, Railway Bunglow Colony, Gangapur City,
Sawai Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur City,
Kota Division, WCR.
5. Malkhan Singh S/O Shri Hori Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/O Shri Amar
Singh, House No. 158 (B), Menõna Pada, Nasiyan Colony, Gangapur City,
Sawai Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur City,
Kota Division, WCR.
6. Ravi Shankar Upadhyay S/O Shri Virendra Upadhyay, Aged About 41
Years, R/O Railway Quarter No. 611 L/A, 40 Qtr Railway Colony, Gangapur
City, Sawai Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur
City, Kota Division, WCR.
7. Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Laxmichand Sharma, Aged About 43
Years, R/O Bunglow No. 102/L, Bunglow Colony, Gangapur City, Sawai
Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur City, Kota
Division, WCR.
8. Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harish Kumar Sharma, Aged About 39
Years, R/O Bunglow No. 134, Bunglow Colony, Gangapur City, Sawai
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
2
OA No. 359/2016
Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur City, Kota
Division, WCR.
9. Bhudev Singh S/O Shri Horam Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/O
Railway Quarter No. 624 El/A, 40 Quarter Railway Colony, Gangapur City,
Sawai Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur City,
Kota Division, WCR.
10. Himmat Singh S/O Late Shri Daulat Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/O
Ward No. 15, Near Shashtri Park, Nasiyan Colony, Gangapur City, Sawai
Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Gangapur City, Kota
Division, WCR.
11. Sunil Kumar Tehriya S/O Late Shri Rohit Kumar Tehriya, Aged About 45
Years, R/O C/O Khema Shankar Sharma, Near B Cabin, Mathu Kala,
Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At
Gangapur City, Kota Division, WCR.
12. Fateh Singh S/O Late Shri Munshi Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/O
House No. 50/B/B, Near Sardar Patel School, Jaihind Nagar I, Wara Road,
Kota Junction, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
13. Baijnath Uniyal S/O Shri Satyaprakash Uniyal, Aged About 40 Years,
R/O C/O Ishwar Das Ferwani, House No. 280, Block No. 9, Rangpur Road
No.6, Dadwada, Kota Junction Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota
Division, WCR.
14. Arjun Singh S/O Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/O Machis
Factory, Vinayak Lane, Dadwada, Kota Junction Presently Working As Loco
Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
15. Mahendra Pratap Singh S/O Shri Harinarayan, Aged About 45 Years,
R/O House No. 95, Street No. 4, Chopra Farm, Kota Junction Presently
Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
16. Meer Hasan Ansari S/O Shri Majnu Mian, Aged About 42 Years, R/O
Pratap Colony, Street No.3, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Raj. Presently
Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
17. Sushil Kumar Maurya S/O Shri Pyare Lal Maurya, Aged About 41 Years,
R/O House No. 100, Riddhi Siddhi Nagar, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction, Raj.
Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
18. Gulam Ahmed Ansari S/O Late Shri Abdul Sakar, Aged About 43 Years,
R/O Flat No. 303, Surya Residency, Rangpur Road No.3,Kota Junction, Raj.
Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
19. Manoj Kumar Gorani S/O Shri Lokumal Gorani, Aged About 38 Years,
R/O House No. D-14, Gyan Sarovar Colony, Bundi Road, Kota Junction, Raj.
Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
3
OA No. 359/2016
20. Navneet Agrawal S/O Shri Mohan Kishan Agrawal, Aged About 38
Years, R/O Kripa Sadan, Street Of Rajendra Hotel, Near Mataji Mandir,
Dadwada, Kota, Raj. Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
21. Gangadhar Saini S/O Shri Bhataram Saini, Aged About 44 Years, R/O
Anand Vihar, Street No. 1, Dadwada, Kota Junction, Raj. Presently Working
As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
22. Anil Singodiya S/O Late Shri Ghisu Lal Singodiya, Aged About 39 Years,
R/O House No. 1332, No. 5, Chpra Farm, Block No. 12, Junction Presently
Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
23. Prabu Dayal Tripathi S/O Shri Kailash Chand Tripathi, Aged About 42
Years, R/O 39-A, Janakpuri, Mala Road, Kota Junction Presently Working As
Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
24. N. L. Pratihar S/O Shri Chote Lal Pratihar, Aged About 45 Years, R/O
House No. 67, Aadarsh Colony, Khedli Phatak, Kota Junction, Raj. Presently
Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
25. Chail Bihari Sharma S/O Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Aged About 44
Years, R/O 25-C, Indira Colony, Mala Road, Kota Junction Presently Working
As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
26. Anurag Saran Shrivastava S/O Shri Anand Prakash Shrivastava, Aged
About 44 Years, R/O Kusum Vila, Mala Road, First Floor, Kota Junction
Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
27. Vasudev Singh S/O Shri Chgandra Pal Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/O
C/O Indra Kumar, House No. 26, Madhu Nagar, Near T. A. Camp, Kota
Junction Presently Working As Loco Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
28. Mahesh Kumar S/O Shri Gehi Mal, Aged About 44 Years, R/O Street No.
4 1/2, Chopra Farm, Dadwada, Kota Junction Presently Working As Loco
Pilot At Kota Division, WCR.
.....APPLICANTS
(By Advocate: Ms. Kavita Bhati)
VERSUS
1. Union Of India Through The General Manager, Western Central
Railway, Jabalpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Kota Division, Kota.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Western Central Railway, DRM
Office, Kota.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain)
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
4
OA No. 359/2016
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present Original Application has been filed by 28 Applicants in all, upon being aggrieved in respect of the grant of financial upgradationsto them under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme; firstly, by the impugned Office Order dated 26.07.2013of the Office of the Respondent No.3, i.e. the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Kota Division of West Central Railway (WCR),issued by the Respondent No.4, i.e the Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO)/Senior DPO [Respondent No.3/4 hereafter] whereby inter alia - the promotion granted in the year 1999 to the Applicantsfrom the post of (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant/ALP(Diesel/Elec.) to the post of Goods Driver/Loco Pilot(Goods)Gr.II had been considered to be equivalent to two promotions as well as two financial upgradations ; and also, the next financial upgradation allowed to them vide Order dated 31.01.2012/01.02.2012 had accordingly been reckoned to be the third financial upgradation under MACP Scheme for Railway Employees ; and further, it had been held that the benefit of such third financial upgradation under MACP would be allowed to them not in the next higher Grade Pay Rs.4600/- but in the GP Rs.4200/-, that being the GP of even the higher promotion posts for them ; and secondly, by the impugned Speaking Order dated 25.05.2015 issued by the Respondent No.3/4 in pursuance of the Order dated 17.03.2015 in previous O.A. No.602/2015 - whereby it had been reiterated that both the instructions, the impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012 and the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways,were applicable towards reckoning of MACP benefits for the Applicants.
2. It had been submitted by the Applicants that all of them were working as Loco Pilots in Gangapur City and Kota Divisionsof YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 5 OA No. 359/2016 the West Central Railway (erstwhile Western Railway), although the exact designated post/category of Loco Pilots - viz. Goods or Passenger or Mail/Express - had not been specified respectively.Vide the present O.A., the Applicants had submitted that all of them were aggrieved of the same set of impugned communications,viz. the Letter dated 28.06.2012 of the Ministry of Railways/Railway Board i.e. the Respondent No.2, the Office Order dated 26.07.2013 and the Speaking Order dated 25.05.2015 issued by the Respondent No.3/4; and were also seeking the same reliefs on similar grounds - and hence, had filed this O.A. jointly before this Tribunal. While allowing the same, the facts of the case of Applicant No.1 - one Ganpat Lal Pareek - had been referred to, as necessitated, hereafter.
3. Also, before the present round of litigation, the Applicants had earlier also approached this Tribunal by filing the O.A. No.602/2013 and a batch of similar petitions. Vide the common Order dated 17.03.2015, the respondents therein were directed inter alia - to decide the case of the applicants therein in light of Judgment/Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 19.07.2013 passed in W.P. No. 18244/2013 [Union of India through G.M., E.C.R.& Ors. Vs. C.A.T. & Ors.], subject to the final outcome of the SLP that had been filed by the Union of India against the said Judgment/Order ; to also decide whether the promotion given to the applicants therein from the post of (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant/ALP(Diesel/Elec.) to the post of Goods Driver/Loco Pilot(Goods)Gr.II would be counted as one promotion or would be counted as two promotions ; and to examine whether the circular vide RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways was applicable in their case. Further, it was also directed that if therespondents therein came to the conclusion that the GP of the applicants therein can be revised, then whether any recovery can be made from the YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 6 OA No. 359/2016 applicants therein in view of the Judgment dated 18.12.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. It was also directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months.
In compliance, the Respondent No.3/4 had passed the impugned Speaking Order dated 25.05.2015 - whereby the promotion of the Applicants from the post of (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant/ALP(Diesel/Elec.) to the post of Goods Driver/Loco Pilot(Goods)Gr.II directly had been treated as two promotions ; and the financial upgradation under MACP Scheme for Railway Employees allowed to the Applicants thereafter had been counted to be the 3rd financial upgradation, as well as the same had been allowed in the GP Rs.4200/- itself, because that was still the GP of the regular promotion post of LP(Passenger) and LP(Mail/Express) from the level of LP(Goods). Aggrieved by the said action of the Respondents, the Applicants had at first preferred a contempt petition, which came to be dismissed with liberty to Applicants to file fresh O.A. for resolution of any further grievances. The present O.A. had thus been filed by the Applicants.
4. For facility in dealing with the present matter, it is deemed apposite to take note at the outset of two important aspects - firstly that the designations of posts in the Loco Running Cadre came to be revised vide RBE No.29/2004 dated 13.02.2004 ; and that the revision of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 pursuant to the accepted recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission (CPC-VI) had resulted in the introduction of the system of Pay structure with Pay Bands with Grade Pay for various level posts came to be brought into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide the Railway Service (Revised Pay) Rules-2008 [the RS(RP) Rules-2008] notified on 04.09.2008vide RBE No.103/2008. However, the relevant dates in YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 7 OA No. 359/2016 the present matter cut across the dates of respective introduction of each of the above, the pleadings of the parties and the applicable Rules/guidelines or related Orders refer to the same posts by either the pre-revised or revised running cadre designations ; or equivalence is indicated in terms of Grade Pay/level of posts even prior to 01.01.2006.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows, briefly. Applicant No.1 was appointed as (Diesel/Elec.)Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.), Eq.GP Rs.1900/-]in the Loco Running Cadre, for training on 11.01.1996 and on regular basis from 08.04.1997. Later, the Office of DRM Kota Division, WCR, the Respondent No.3 had issued the Letter dated 23.08.1999 regarding Promotion by selection for filling up 175 vacant posts of Goods Driver, which were prescribed to be 100% Promotion posts to be filled on basis of (Seniority-cum- Suitability with prescribed benchmark) - and a list of candidates eligible to appear at the written examination as part of the selection process had also been issued. Purportedly, due to non- availability of adequate incumbents in the regular feeder posts of Shunting Driver [LP(Shunting)Gr.II, Eq.GP Rs.2400/-] or of Sr.(Diesel/Elec.) Assistant[Sr.ALP, Eq.GP Rs.2400/-] to bepromoted as Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.II, Eq.GP Rs.4200/-], the said Eligibility List had also included employees, inter alia Applicant No.1, who were then working in the even lower post of (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.), Eq.GP Rs.1900/-]. Eventually, Applicant No.1 was selected and had joined as Goods Driver [LP(Goods), Eq.GPRs.4200/-] on 29.09.2001. Upon completion of 10 years of service in the same post/grade, the Applicant No.1 was allowed a financial up-gradation under the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees vide Office Order dated 31.01.2012/01.02.2012 issued by Respondent No.3/4 - which YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 8 OA No. 359/2016 was reckoned thereby to be the 2nd financial up-gradation for him ; and which was allowed thereby to the GP Rs. 4600/-.
6. However later, firstly vide the impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways, it had been clarified that as a result of the said special dispensation, the concerned employees had progressed to a stage that was two stages/grades higher next,as per the cadre hierarchy/Avenues for Promotion Chart (AVC) of Loco Pilots; and therefore, in such situation those employees should be treated as having earned two promotions and the MACP scheme in respect of such employees be regulated in the light of above position.
Secondly, vide the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways, it had been clarified after consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T)on the matter as to what Grade Pay would be admissible under MACP Scheme to an employee holding feeder post in a cadre where promotional post wasalso in the same Grade Pay, that financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Schemes cannot be to higher Grade Pay than what are allowed to an employee on his normal promotion ; and in such cases, financial upgradation under MACP Scheme would be granted in the same Grade Pay.
7. Consequently, vide the impugned Office Order dated 26.07.2013 of the Respondent No.3/4, it had been conveyed that in light of the impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012 of Railway Board/Ministry of Railways, the promotion as Goods Driver [LP(Goods), Eq.GP Rs.4200/-]for Applicant No.1 had also to count as two promotions, while also reckoning the intermediate promotion as Shunter [LP(Shunting)Gr.II, Eq.GP Rs.2400/-] while promoting them from (Diesel/Elec.)Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.),Eq. GP Rs.1900/-] ; and the same had been YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 9 OA No. 359/2016 taken to imply those to be equal to two financial upgradations. Further, in light of the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways, the benefit of MACP in cases where the feeder cadre and promotion cadre were in the same GP cannot be more than the said GP and the financial benefits of MACP were to be accorded in the same GP. Consequently, the previous orders dated 31.01.2012/01.02.2012 were amended to count the said financial upgradation to be reckoned as the 3rd benefit for the Applicant No.1,under the extant MACP Scheme for Railway Employees issued vide the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways ; and further, the benefit of the said 3rdfinancial upgradation was modified to be allowed in the GP Rs.4200/- only, instead of the GP Rs. 4600/-, as had been allowed previously. Upon being aggrieved by that, the Applicants had agitated the matter before this Tribunal in the previous round of litigation also vide O.A. No.602/2013 and the related bunch of O.A.s, whereas it had been submitted that the selection/promotion from the post of LP (Goods) to the post of LP (Passenger) [and by extension of the same logic, to the post of LP (Mail/Express)] was not to be deemed as promotion ; but only a lateral induction, since all those posts were in the same GP Rs. 4200/-. The outcome of that catena of litigations had culminated in the dismissal of the Applicants' contempt petition, with liberty to file fresh O.A. for resolution of any further grievances.
8. Thus, the present O.A. had been filed by the Applicants challenging inter alia the said impugned Speaking Order dated 25.05.2017 of Respondent No.3/4.Vide the present O.A., the Applicants had sought multiple substantive reliefs, inter alia that -
(i) "By an appropriate order or direction relevant records pertaining to grant of the second/third financial upgradation under the MACPS in various other divisions pertaining to Guards and Drivers.(sic) YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 10 OA No. 359/2016
(ii) By an appropriate order or direction the impugned order dated 25.05.2015 and 26.07.2013 issued by the Respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside with all the consequential benefits to the Applicant.
(iii) By an appropriate order or direction the impugned order dated 28.06.2012 may also be quashed and set aside.
(iv) By an appropriate order or direction the Respondents may be directed not to take any further action for recovery etc. in pursuance of the impugned orders.
(v) By an appropriate order or direction, necessary directions may be given to the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Applicants in PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800 plus GP of Rs. 4600/- with all consequential benefits."
9. It was the Applicants' case that they had been promoted from the post of (Diesel/Elec.)Assistant/ALP (Diesel/Elec.) to the post of Goods Driver/LP(Goods)Gr.II directly in pursuance of a process of selection including written examination and interview - hence such a promotion was required to be counted only as single promotion, irrespective of the existence of intermediate promotion posts of Sr.(Diesel/Elec.) Assistant/Shunting Driver [Sr. ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/LP(Shunting)Gr.-II and LP (Shunting)Gr.-I] in their promotional hierarchy. Also secondly, it was the case of the Applicants that as per the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees issued vide the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways and brought into effect from 01.09.2008, the Applicants who were drawing the GPRs.4200/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in consequence to the pay revision vide the RS(RP) Rules-2008, were entitled for grant of their next financial upgradation in the next higher GP Rs. 4600/- and the same had been fixed for them vide previous order dated 31.01.2012/01.02.2012. Hence, the Respondents' subsequent actions - of issuing the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways and of reviewing the cases of their financial upgradations granted previously - vide the impugned Office Order dated 26.07.2013 of Respondent No.3/4 were stated to be unjust and arbitrary.
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
11
OA No. 359/2016
10. Vide their Reply, the Respondents had admitted only to the matters of facts on record, but had not agreed to the other contentions of the Applicants vide the present O.A. It had firstly been admitted inter alia - that the Applicant No.1 was appointed as (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.), Eq.GP Rs.1900/-) on regular basis from 08.04.1997 ; that the Office of Respondent No.3/4 had issued the Letter dated 23.08.1999 for promotion for filling up 175 vacant posts of Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.II] ; that due to non-availability of adequate incumbents in the regular feeder posts of Sr.(Diesel/Elec.) Assistant/Shunting Driver [Sr. ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/LP(Shunting)Gr.-II], the Eligibility List of employees for the Written Test as part of the selection process had also included incumbents, inter alia Applicant No.1, then working in the even lower post of (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.)] ; and that pursuantly the Applicant No.1 was selected and had joined as Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.II, Eq.GP Rs.4200/-] on 29.09.2001. Secondly, it had been admitted - that eventually, upon completion of 10 years of service in the same post/grade, the Applicant No.1 had been allowed a financial up- gradation under the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees vide Office Order dated 31.01.2012/01.02.2012 issued by Respondent No.3/4, which had initially been reckoned to be the 2nd financial up-gradation for him and was allowed to the GP Rs. 4600/- as well. Thirdly, it had been admitted that subsequently vide impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways, it had been clarified that as a result of special dispensation, the Applicant No.1, inter alia the concerned employees, had progressedto a post two next stages/grades higher as per the cadre hierarchy/AVC of Loco Pilots, which should be treated as having earned two promotions ; and hence the MACP Scheme in respect of such employees be regulated in the light of above position. Fourthly, it had been admitted that vide YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 12 OA No. 359/2016 the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways,it had been clarified that in cases where the feeder cadre and promotion cadre were in the same GP, the benefit of MACP cannot be accorded to be more than the said GP but in the same GP.
Consequently, it had also been not denied that the previous orders dated 31.01.2012/01.02.2012 of the Respondent No.3/4were amended vide the impugned Office Order dated 26.07.2013 of the same Office, to count the said financial upgradation for the Applicant No.1 to be reckoned as the 3rd benefit under the extant MACP Scheme for Railway Employees ; further, the benefit of said 3rd financial upgradation was modified to be allowed in the GP Rs.4200/- only, instead of the higher GP Rs. 4600/-, as had been allowed previously.
11. The other contentions of the Applicants had been contested by the Respondents. The positions of the parties, in relation to those - in terms of the provisions of the related statutory guidelines/instructions ; or in terms of the cases cited in support
- had emerged to be as summarized hereafter.
In respect of the claim of Applicant No.1 that he had been promoted from the post of the ALP to the post of LP(Goods) directly, hence such a promotion was required to be counted only as single promotion- towards the statutory provisions/guidelines extant in this regard, the Applicants had sought to cite in support the relevant Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Volume-Iincorporated in CHAPTER-Ithereof, which was titled 'Recruitment, Training, Confirmation and Re-employment' ; and had in its Section-B :
'Rules for the recruitment and training of Group-(C), Group-(D) and Workshop Staff' included a SUB-SECTION-III 'RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING' inter alia as follows -
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
13
OA No. 359/2016
"III. TRANSPORTATION (POWER) DEPARTMENT
(i) FIRST FIREMAN : DELETED
136. DELETED
(Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)II/2000/RR-I/47 dated 03.8.2001)
(ii) ASSISTANT LOCO PILOTS (DIESLE/ELECTRIC):
137.(1) The posts in the category of Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel/Electric) in Grade Pay Rs.1900 (Level-2) will be filled as under :-
(i) 50% by lateral drafting from amongst the volunteering Diesel/Electric Loco Fitters of Diesel/Electric loco sheds with three years' service in Grade Pay Rs.1900 (Level-2), failing which Technicians (Fitter) Diesel/Electric Loco, with less than three years service in grade but total service of six years and by promotion of staff in Grade Pay Rs.1800 (Level-1) in Diesel/Electric Loco sheds with a total service of six years in Diesel/Electric Loco Sheds having the qualification of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship in Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics Engineering trade or Matriculation with ITI as an additional preferable qualification withe upper age limit of 35 years (40 years in the case of SC/ST).
(ii) 50% plus the shortfall, if any, against (i) above by direct recruitment through the Railway Recruitment Boards.
(2) (i) Qualifications etc. for direct recruitment will be as under:-
Educational:- Matriculation pass plus
(a) ITI in specified trades/Act Apprenticeship, OR
(b) DiplomainMechanical/Electrical/Electronics/ Automobile Engineering in lieu of ITI.
Note:- Specified trades for the purpose of (a) above are as follows :
A. Fitter
B. Electrician
C. Instrument Mechanic
D. Mill Wright/Maintenance Mechanic
E. Mechanic (Radio & TV)
F. Electronic Mechanic
G. Mechanic (Motor Vehicle)
H. Wireman
I. Tractor Mechanic
J. Armature & Coil Winder
K. Mechanic (Diesel)
L. Heat Engine
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
14
OA No. 359/2016
M. Turner
N. Machinist
O. Refrigeration & AC Mechanic
Note : (1) Combination of various streams of trades of Engineering disciplines from a recognised Institution in lieu of ITI will be allowed.
(2) Degree in the Engineering disciplines as above will also be acceptable in lieu of Diploma in Engineering. (Authority Railway Boards letter No.E(NG)II/2001/RR-1/6 dated 20.08.2001 (RBE 162/2001), E(NG)II/2000/RR-1/ 47 dated 19.10.2015 (RBE 129/2015), E(NG)II/2023/RR-1/59 dated 28.07.2023) (Railway Board Authority No E(NG)I-2020/CPP/2 dated 14.12.2023 ACS No 285)
(ii) Age : Between 18 to 27 years.
(iii) Training and Stipend : They will be on training for a period of 17 weeks. Stipend : Rs.5830/-+Rs.1900/- (per month). (Authority : Railway Board letter No. E(MPP)2009/3/14 dated 26.09.11 & 13.03.12).....ACS Nos.218 & 222.
(3) Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel/Electric) have avenue of progression/promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel/Electric) GP Rs.2400 (Level-4), Loco Pilot (Shunting) Gr.II, GP Rs.2400 (Level-4), Loco Pilot (Shunting) Gr.I (Grade Pay Rs.4200 (Level-6), and so on as per procedure in force for filling up post in these categories. Further Promotion is listed at Para 140 below.
(iii) ELECTRIC ASSISTANT :DELETED
138. DELETED
(iv) STEAM SHUNTERS :DELETED
139. DELETED
(Authority : Railway Board�s letter No. E(NG)II/2000/RR-I/47 dated 03.8.2001)
(v) DRIVERS & LOCO RUNNING SUPERVISORS
140. The classes included in this group and their channels of promotion are as given below :-
(a) LOCO PILOTs (GOODS) GP Rs.4200 (LEVEL-6) (Motorman & Sr. Motorman got merged post 6Th CPC & they are equivalent to loco pilot (Passenger) LOCO PILOTs (PASSENGER/SENIOR MOTORMAN GP Rs.4200 (LEVEL-6) LOCO PILOTs (MAIL)
(b) CHIEF LOCO INSPECTORS Note 1 : The posts in the category of Loco Pilot (Goods) are ordinarily filled by selection from Loco Pilot (Shunting). However, in the event of non-availability of Loco Pilot (Shunting), General Managers can approve YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 15 OA No. 359/2016 selection from ALP cadre also for posting as LP(Goods) in terms of RBE No.101/2008, subject to conditions stipulated therein.
Note 2 : The posts of Chief Loco Inspector are filled as per procedure prescribed in Railway Board's letter No.E(P&A)II-2009/RS-17 dated o3.07.2019.
(c) The posts of Power Controller & Chief Power Controller/Traction Loco Controller & Chief Traction Loco Controller will form part of the Loco Pilot posts in Level-6 as listed in (a) above.
These posts will be filled up by deputation from among suitable optees as provided in Board's letter No. E(P&A)II-2009/RS-17 dated 03.07.2019). Note 3: For the purpose of selection/promotion and pay fixation, it is made clear that each of the functional categories of Loco Pilot(Goods), Loco Pilots (Passengers)/Sr.Motorman, Loco Pilot (Mail) etc., constitute separate and distinct cadres/seniority units within the overall classification of loco Running Staff.
(Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2019/PM-7/5 dated 14.11.2019)"
(Emphasis provided) It had been contended by the Respondents, that as per the aforesaid Recruitment Rules for the posts of Loco Drivers and Loco Running Supervisors under the Transportation (Power) Department, as well as the relevant Avenues for Promotion Chart (AVC) drawn up for the Loco Pilots and Loco Inspectors, along with the Pay Structure comprising the Pay Band and Grade Pay as per accepted/implemented recommendations of the CPC-VI,it had emerged that the promotion channel for (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.), Eq.GP Rs.1900/-] was either to Sr. (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [Sr.ALP (Diesel/Elec.),Eq.GP Rs.2400/-] then to Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.II,Eq.GP Rs.4200/-] ; or to Shunting Driver [LP(Shunting)Gr.II, Eq.GP Rs.2400/-] and then to Sr. Shunting Driver [LP(Shunting)Gr.I,Eq.GP Rs.4200/-] or Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.-II in Eq.GP Rs. 4200/-]. Thus,in the promotional hierarchy from (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.)]to the post of Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.II], the intermediate promotion posts of Sr. (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [Sr. ALP(Diesel/Elec.)]/Shunting Driver [LP(Shunting)Gr.-II] had clearly existed.
YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 16 OA No. 359/2016
12. However, the promotion of the Applicant No.1 to Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.-II, Eq.GP Rs.4200/-] had been effected while he was working as Diesel/Elec. Asst. [ALP (Diesel/Elec.), Eq.GP Rs.1900/-]in pursuance of a process of selection ; by taking recourse to Railway Board/Ministry of Railways RBE No.40/1996 dated 01.05.1996 as amended from time to time, inter alia the RBE No.101/2008 - which had been also mentioned in Note-1 under Para-140 of the Recruitment Rules (supra). The relevant provisions of the same had been incorporated as Notes in the AVC for Mechanical Department also,as follows -
"NOTE: -
......
(1) A candidate should possess prescribed footplate experience, passing of Aptitude Test, whenever prescribed and pre-promotional course/trainee consisting of Written Test will be mandatory in case of promotion to the post in GP-4200/- through mode of promotion has been prescribed as suitability with prescribed benchmark.
(2) In the event of non-availability of eligible Shunter-I, [Shunter-II, Sr.ALP& ALP] with two years of service may be considered for promotion to LP/Goods with GM's approval, subject to that the staffs concerned have completed 2 years service as ALP and 60000 km experience in footplate.
Other conditions are as stated in RBE No. 101/2008, Railway Board's letter No. 2004/M(L)/466/7101 dated. 31.08.2009." The essential claim of Applicant No.1 was that he had been promoted from the post of (Diesel/Elec.)Assistant/ALP (Diesel/Elec.) to the post of Goods Driver/LP(Goods)Gr.II directly, in pursuance of a single process of selection including written examination and interview, hence such a promotion was required to be counted only as single promotion. The Respondents had agreed that under the circumstances described, viz. of the acute shortage of Sr.(Diesel/Elec.) Assistant/Shunting Driver [Sr. ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/LP(Shunting)Gr.-II], promotion was made directly to the post of Goods Driver [LP(Goods)Gr.II]from amongst the even lower post of Diesel/Elec.
Assistant/ALP(Diesel/Elec.). However, that did not imply that YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 17 OA No. 359/2016 theApplicants had only one promotion, since the intermediate promotion posts of Sr. ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/LP(Shunting)Gr.II had clearly existed in this promotion hierarchy, before the post of Goods Driver[LP(Goods)Gr.II] - thus as the Applicants had been promoted to a post in their promotional hierarchy that was two successive stages higher than the post in which they were working, it ought to be reckoned as equivalent to two promotions for them. Moreover, it was also contended that apart from the claim to deem the said movementas one promotion being contrary to the extant AVC/RRs, such an interpretation would result in structural discrepancy by creating two categories of LP(Goods) - the second being of LP (Goods) who would have been promoted in the regular promotion scheme/channel, at first to the grade/post of LP(Shunter) and then to the post of LP(Goods) and thereby two promotions would be reckoned for them in reaching the post of LP(Goods) to their disadvantage.
13. The pleadings and arguments of the parties in respect of this issue had been carefully examined with reference to the applicable provisions presented before us. We found that as per those, the related aspects- that the Applicants had been promoted from the post of Assistant (Diesel/Electric)/ALP(Diesel/Elec.) to the post of Goods Driver/LP(Goods)Gr.II directly in pursuance of a single process of selection including written examination and interview; and that the intermediate promotion posts of Sr.Assistant (Diesel/Electric)/Shunting Driver [Sr. ALP(Diesel/Elec.) /LP(Shunting)Gr.-II] had clearly existed in the related promotion hierarchy - were both correct and undisputed facts,per se. It was also brought out before us that the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways had addressed the matter vide the impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012 addressed to the General Manager(P) of the YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 18 OA No. 359/2016 NCR, Allahabad on the subject of Financial Upgradation under MACPS to Loco Pilots.It had thereby been stated that -
" With reference to the letter above, it is stated that the promotions earned by the employees from ALP-II (GP-1900) to LPG (GP-4200) directly as a one time exemption due to shortage of Goods Guard neither fall in the line of AVC nor in Recruitment Rules of Loco Pilot categories. This special dispensation has only been granted due to non-availability of Shunters. As a result of the said special dispensation the concerned employee(s) have progressed to two next higher stages/grades as per the cadre hierarchy/AVC of Loco Pilots category. Therefore, in such situation the employee(s) should be treated as having earned two promotions.
It is therefore, advised that MACP Scheme in respect of such employees may please be regulated in light of the above position."
The said Letter dated 28.06.2012 had been impugned by the Applicants also on the ground that the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways could not have altered/modified the MACP Scheme circulated vide the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 by itself. However, it was noted that the Railway Board/Ministry of Railway had duly adopted/circulated the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees, based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC-VI), vide the RBE No.101/2009 dated 10.06.2009. Clearly therefore, it was also competent to issue any further guidelines or clarifications to address any disputes/doubts that could have arisen in course of the implementation by the various Railways of the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees ; and had actually proceeded to issue the impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012, inter alia to address one such dispute/doubt. Nonetheless, we also observed that the clarificatory impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways was prone to divergent interpretations - because firstly, the said communication had been addressed only to one Zonal GM(P) ; and secondly, it had not spelt out the action expected of the respective GM(P) in explicit terms, but instead only stated that YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 19 OA No. 359/2016 MACP Scheme in respect of such employees may be regulated in light of the position enunciated thereby- which itself was related to the number of promotions earned by the employee ; whereas the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees vide RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways was basically designed in terms of financial upgradations.
14. Importantly, the dispute before us was not about counting the number of promotions per se; but about counting the number of financial upgradations allowed to the Applicants under the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees.Hence, the crucial aspect of relevance to the present case would be not just whether the employee had earned one or two promotions,as enunciated vide the impugned Letter dated 28.06.2012of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways - but that how many financial upgradations ought to be reckoned for such an employee towards the MACP Scheme benefits. From a very basic logic, the principle for reckoning of financial upgradations ought to be for counting of financial upgradations actually granted. The Respondents had instead used the number of promotions earned, deeming that as a one-to-one proxy for the financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees. Thus, the number of promotions earned by the Applicant No.1 inter alia, had also been identically equated to be also the number of financial upgradations for him. While in normal promotions, the said identityis expectedto hold since the promotions are expected to be accorded step-wise and in consequence, pay fixations/financial upgradations would result at every step of promotion. But the said identity would not hold when direct promotions to levels higher than one level above were involved. This was the root cause of the dispute presently before us, where the Applicants claim was that their posting as YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 20 OA No. 359/2016 LP(Goods) directly from ALP(Diesel/Electric) should be deemed to be 1 Promotion (without averments as to whether they were granted one financial upgradation vide their resultant pay fixation) ; whereas the Respondents had stated it to be deemable not only as 2 promotions, but also as 2 financial upgradations, again without averment whether two financial upgradations had actually been allowedin the resultant pay fixations.
15. Once the basic principlesrelevant to facilitate resolution of this dispute - that it is the number of financial upgradations that was needed to be reckoned ; that the number of promotions could not always be equal to the number of financial upgradations ; and that in special situations, one of which was the case of the Applicants, such identity would not hold - are recognized, the fallacy of always maintaining the number of promotions to be also the number of financial upgradations,even for promotions of Applicants from the post of ALP(Diesel/Elec.) direct to post of LP(Goods) that was two levels higher, would be exposed ; and would not be tenable.
Thus, for the purpose of MACP benefits, the number of financial upgradations were required to be reckoned on the basis of those actually allowed to the Applicant No.1 through his pay fixation in the post of LP(Goods). Thus, if such pay fixation had been allowed to the Applicant No.1 with two raises in terms of increments/Grade Pay, the same ought to be counted as two financial upgradation in terms of increment/Grade Pay ; andif such pay fixation had been allowed with one raise in terms of increments/Grade Pay, the same ought to be counted as one financial upgradation, unless another refixation of his pay in the grade of LP(Goods) were to be allowed with two raises in terms of increments/Grade Pay.
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
21
OA No. 359/2016
It was also observed that such adherence to the basic principles could possibly account also for the structural discrepancy of creation of two categories of LP(Goods) - apprehension regarding which had been pointed out by the Respondents. We also observed that the Respondents had expressed the concern regarding the structural discrepancy of creation of two categories of LP(Goods) of one type - in that for one category as the Applicants herein, the promotion to the post of LP(Goods) would result in reckoning as one financial upgradation under MACP Scheme for Railway Employees ; while for others being promoted in the regular channel to the grade/post of Sr.ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/LP(Shunter) and then to the grade/post of LP(Goods), two financial upgradations would be reckoned - the desirability to avoid such a scenario would be logical and understandable. However, the Respondents ought to consideralso the possibility of another structural discrepancy by creation of two categories of LP(Goods) conversely - in that for one category promoted directly to the post of LP(Goods), like the Applicants herein, two financial upgradation as per MACP Scheme for Railway Employees would get reckoned while promoting them in one go and actually allowing only one upgradation in terms of increment/Grade Pay while making their pay fixation in the post of LP(Goods) ; whereas for others being promoted in the regular channel to the grade/post of Sr.ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/LP(Shunter) and then to the grade/post of LP(Goods), two financial upgradations would have been allowed actually in making their pay fixations on each occasion. This would also be equally undesirable in principle.
16. Therefore, we hold that the basic principle for reckoning the number of financial upgradations under MACP Scheme for Railway Employees for every promotee/joinee in the post of LP(Goods) from the grade/post of ALP(Diesel/Elec.) - whether by regular promotion, i.e. in two steps firstly from the grade/post of YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 22 OA No. 359/2016 ALP(Diesel/Elec.) to the grade/post of Sr.ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/ LP(Shunter) and then to the grade/post of LP(Goods) ; or whether by direct promotion from the grade/post of ALP(Diesel/Elec.) - had to be to reckon the number of financial upgradations for the purpose of MACP on the basis of those actually allowed, as reflected through their pay fixation and emoluments paid in consequence. However, at this stage, the relevant pay fixations are not before us to enable delving on it any further. In any case, the same was within the purview of the competent Ministry of Railways/Railway Board authorities to frame suitably, so that the structural discrepancies described - in favour or against either of the categories of Goods Driver/LP(Goods), viz. those posted after regular promotions and those posted after direct selection/promotionfrom the level of (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant/ALP(Diesel/Elec.) - could be avoided.
17. In respect of the Applicants' case that as per the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees notified vide RBE No.101/2009 dated 10.06.2009 and brought into effect from 01.09.2008, an employee was always entitled for the next higher GP while granting the financial upgradation and that it was immaterial that the feeder post and the promotional post were in the same GP -towards the statutory provisions/guidelines extant in this regard, the Applicant had relied upon the introductory para of the said the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways, which had inter alia stated that the CPC-VI in Para 6.1.15 of its report, has recommended Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme ; and as per its recommendations, financial upgradation will be available in the next higher Grade Pay whenever an employee has completed 12 years of continuous service in the same grade. In turn, the Respondents had pointed out that the said mention was regarding what the CPC-VI had YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 23 OA No. 359/2016 recommended. However, after due consideration of the recommendations of the CPC-VI by the Government, the Ministry of Railways/Railway Board had in supersession of the previous ACP Scheme, notified the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees - the details and conditions for grant of the financial upgradation under which were enclosed as Annexure to the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways. Thus, it was presented that the mention of the recommendation of the CPC-VI was not tantamount to the same having been decided to be implemented as such for Railway employees ; for which the provisions of the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees circulated vide Annexure to the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways had to be referred to. Thereby inter alia, the Para-8 and Para-8.1 of the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees had stated the terms and conditions for grant of financial upgradation in cases where promotions were earned in a post carrying same GP in the promotional hierarchy as per the RRs ; and laid down that such promotion shall be counted for the purpose of MACP Scheme. The Respondents had further stated that the matter had been specifically addressed vide the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways addressed to all the General Manager of Railways and CAO of Production Units. It had thereby been clarified regarding grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme for Railway Employees that -
"References have been received from Zonal Railways seeking clarification as to what Grade Pay would be admissible under MACP Scheme to an employee holding feeder post in a cadre where promotional post is in the same Grade Pay. The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), the nodal Department of the Government on MACP Scheme and it is clarified that ACP/MACP Schemes have been introduced by the Government in order to mitigate the problems of genuine stagnation faced by employees due to lack of YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 24 OA No. 359/2016 promotional avenues. Thus, financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme CANNOT be to a higher Grade Pay than what can be allowed to an employee on his normal promotion. In such cases financial upgradation under MACP Scheme would be granted to the same Grade Pay."
Accordingly, since in the Applicants' case, the further promotion posts of LP(Passenger) and LP(Mail/Express) were also in same GP Rs.4200/-,hence the Applicants were entitled to grant of financial upgradations as per MACP Scheme for Railway Employees in the same GP Rs.4200/- and not the GP Rs.4600/- ,because that was not allowed on regular promotion itself from the LP(Goods) to LP(Passenger)/ LP(Mail/Express).
18. Apart from the position of statutory guidelines/instructions presented as above, the Respondents had further sought to rely upon the authority of the Judgment/Order dated 27.03.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No.3321 of 2018 in the case of Mukti Singha on this very subject matter. The said Civil Appeal in the case of Mukti Singha (supra) had arisen from the order dated 11.07.2017 of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Mukti Singha vs. Union of India & Ors., which itself had relied on the Order dated 14.06.2017 in another similar case Mitali Ghosh & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. to hold that under MACP, an employee is entitled for a grade pay higher than the grade pay applicable for the hierarchy of promotional posts applicable for the employee. However, the above order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had been set aside by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.3321 of 2018 vide the Judgment dated 27.03.2018, whereby it had been held inter alia that -
"5. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court that the respondents are entitled to grade pay higher than what they may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy cannot be sustained. The High Court erred in distinguishing the judgment on the ground that the same related to ACP Scheme. We do not find any reason to exclude the principle laid down therein for interoperation of MACP. Moreover, clarification referred to above fully supports this interpretation.
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
25
OA No. 359/2016
Accordingly, the impugned order (s) is set aside and the appeals filed by the Union of India are allowed.
However, we make it clear that no payments already made will be recovered from the respondents."
From the above Judgment dated 27.03.2018 of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.3321 of 2018 in the case of Mukti Singha (supra), it emerged that the Order dated 11.07.2017 of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court to the effect that an employee is entitled for a grade pay under MACP, which is higher than the grade pay for the promotional post in the cadre as per rules, had been overruled and the circular vide the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways had been found to be in order. In view of above discussions, this issue was found to be no more res integra as the law in this regard had already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as herein above ; and hence, we hold that the Applicant's challenge to the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways vide the present O.A. is found to not succeed.
19. In respect of the Applicants'submission that the selection/promotion for them from the post of LP (Goods) to the post of LP (Passenger) [and by extension to the post of LP (Mail/Express)] was not to be deemed as promotion but only a lateral induction since all those posts were in Rs. 4200/- as the same grade pay for each -towards the statutory provisions/guidelines extant in this regard, none had been cited on behalf of the Applicants. Per contra, the Respondents had submitted that the applicants belonged to loco running cadre of the Indian Railway, with a defined set of Recruitment Rules and promotional hierarchy as per IREM Volume-I, the CHAPTER-I of which was titled 'Recruitment, Training, Confirmation and re-employment' ; and had in its YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 26 OA No. 359/2016 Section-B titled 'Rules for the recruitment and training of Group- (C), Group-(D) and Workshop Staff' included as SUB-SECTION-III 'RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING' under the TRANSPORTATION (POWER) DEPARTMENT in Para-136 to Para-140. On the other hand, the provisions for the distinct cadre of Guards had been incorporated under the Transportation (Traffic) Department in Para-124 thereof. These would show that these posts were functionally very different and existed in totally separate Departments, with distinct provisions for the hierarchy of posts, modes of recruitment and prescribed process of entry to the level/post of Goods Guard than those for the posts of LP (Goods) as per specific extant Recruitment Rules.
Also, in light of those statutory provisions, the Applicants' primary argument that movement between posts carrying the same Grade Pay should not be treated as promotion was fundamentally flawed
- because the concept of promotion in service jurisprudence was determined by the hierarchy of posts and duties attached to them and not merely by the Grade Pay attached to such posts. Even after implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the cadre hierarchy of Loco Running Staff continued to exist as per operational requirements and corresponding Recruitment Rules of the Railways. Therefore, promotions within this hierarchy cannot be disregarded merely because of features of pay structure introduced by the CPC_VI ; and thus, the movement within the cadre of LP(Goods)) to LP(Passenger) and thereafter to LP(Mail/Express) cannot be ignored for the purposes of MACP Scheme, on the ground that those posts carried the same Grade Pay. Such a prayer was stated to be legally untenable since it was contrary to the RRs governing the loco running cadre. It was further submitted that the Applicants had already received regular promotions within the loco running cadre, including promotion up to the post of Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) - and a YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 27 OA No. 359/2016 statement showing the relevant details had also been submitted in course of the arguments/hearing and was taken on record. Thus, it was sought to be shown that while on one hand the Applicants had already availed multiple promotions as per the hierarchy in the loco running cadre together with the associated benefits of fixation of pay etc. with increments on promotion and higher allowances of the higher promotion posts ; on the other hand, they were still pursuing claims for even further financial upgradations under MACP Scheme for Railway Employees,by denying that those movements were promotions, but claiming those as lateral induction -without any support from the extant statutory provisions. It was also submitted that it was a settled principle of service jurisprudence that an employee who had accepted the benefits of a service provision without protest, cannot subsequently challenge that very provision for service benefit - in the present case, the applicants who had accepted the benefit of promotion to the post of LP (Passenger) and LP (Mail/Express) without protest and had also enjoyed the benefits flowing from those promotions, cannot later challenge that very promotion claiming further financial benefits under MACP Scheme.
20. Nonetheless, the Applicants had referred to Para-5 of the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees notified vide the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railwaysas applicable in their case. They had sought to submit that it implied that their postings/promotions to the post of LP (Passenger) or even further to the post of LP (Mail/Express) had to be ignored for the purpose of granting financial upgradations under the aforesaid MACPScheme for Railway Employees. A reading of the Para-5 showed it to provide that -
" 5. Promotions earned/upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Sixth YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 28 OA No. 359/2016 Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS.
Illustration-1 The pre-revised hierarchy (in ascending order) in a particular organization was as under:-
Rs. 5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000 & Rs. 6500-10500
(a) A Government servant who was recruited in the hierarchy in the pre-
revised pay scale Rs. 5000-8000 and who did not get a promotion even after 25 years of service prior to 1.1.2006,in his case as on 1.1.2006he would have got two financial upgradations under ACP to the next grades in the hierarchy of his organization, i.e., to the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500.
(b) Another Government servant recruited in the same hierarchy in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000 has also completed about 25 years of service, but he got two promotions to the next higher grades of Rs. 5500- 9000 & Rs. 6500-10500 during this period.
ln the case of both (a) and (b) above, the promotions/financial upgradations granted under ACP to the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5500- 9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 prior to 1.1.2006will be ignored on account of merger of the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5000- 8000, Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 recommended by the Sixth CPC. As per CCS (RP) Rules, both of them will be granted grade pay of Rs. 4200 in the pay band PB-2. After the implementation of MACPS, two financial upgradations will be granted both in the case of (a) and (b) above to the next higher grade pays of Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800 in the pay band PB-2." The Respondents had contested the same by stating that the said Para-5 had pertained to the promotions earned/upgradations granted under the ACP scheme in the past (i.e. before the date of effect of the MACP scheme, viz. 0). The promotions to the Applicant No.1 to the post of LP(Passenger) had been granted on 13.06.2018 and to the post of LP(Mail/Express) on 02.06.2022, both later than and under the MACP scheme for Railway Employees introduced vide the RBE No.101/2009, dated 10.06.2009 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railwaysto be effective 01.09.2008 onwards ;and not under the ACP scheme. Hence the provision of the Para-5 of the said MACP Scheme for Railway Employees would not be applicable in the present case.
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
29
OA No. 359/2016
It had further been submitted that the recommendations of the CPC-VI adopted for implementation by the government after due consideration had allowed for situations where the merger of certain feeder cadre and promotion cadreposts was not found feasible on account of functional requirements ; and those posts were retained in the same Pay Structure (viz. the same Pay Band and the same Grade Pay). Upon reference, the principles for fixation of pay in various situations where feeder and promotional posts had been placed in the same Pay Structure (viz. Pay Band And Grade Pay)had been incorporated in the Rule 13 of the RS(RP) Rules-2008, that were issued pursuant to the recommendations of the CPC-VI being accepted for implementation. It had further been submitted that clarificatory instructions had also been issued in pursuance thereof from time to time, each of which had maintained that the movement from LP (Goods) to LP (Passenger) and from LP (Passenger) to LP (Mail/Express) were to be deemed as promotions from one feeder category to another promotional category in the same revised Pay Structure effective from 01.01.2006 onwards ; and further the staff affected by the decision as above were required to submit the option for their pay re-fixation from the date of promotion as above or from the date of next increment in the feeder category.
21. We had examined the submissions of the contesting parties, with a reference to the extant statutory provisions. The Rule-13 of the RS (RP) Rules-2008 had also been perused. Reference had also been made to the RBE No.95/2013 dated 12.09.2013, as well as the RBE No.54/2014 dated 22.05.2014 - both issued to clarify the position regarding fixation of pay on functional promotion under Rule-13 of the RS(RP) Rules-2008 - specifically in the case of loco running staff inter alia where feeder and promotional posts had been placed in the same Pay structure (i.e., the same Pay Band and same Grade Pay) and where merger of posts had not YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 30 OA No. 359/2016 been feasible. It was found thereby that the posts of LP (Goods), LP (Passenger) and LP (Mail/Express) of the loco running cadre had been deemed to be posts in the hierarchy of promotion, although placed in the same revised Pay Structure from 01.01.2006 onwards. The details of the procedure to be followed while making those promotions in the same Pay Structure, inter alia allowing for promotional increments and additional allowances etc. had also been laid down vide the RBE No.95/2013 dated 12.09.2013, as well as the RBE No.54/2014 dated 22.05.2014. In light of the same, we found that not only the existence of feeder and promotional posts was permitted/acknowledged vide the recommendations of the CPC-VI, duly considered for implementation by the Government/Ministry of Railways ; specific provisions covering the Loco Running Posts of LP (Goods), LP (Passenger) and LP (Mail/Express) had been made for fixation of pay upon promotion in these posts and situations where the Pay Structure (Pay Band and Grade Pay) was the same in those feeder as well as promotional posts. Moreover, we also found that Para-8 of the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees specifically catered to such a situation ;and stated that promotions earned in the post carrying same Grade Pay in the promotional hierarchy as per RRs shall be counted for the purpose of MACPScheme. Hence, we found from the statutory provisions relating to the movement from the level of LP (Goods) to the level of LP (Passenger) and thereafter to the level of LP (Mail/Express), were for those to be deemed as promotion - and had allowed for higher pay fixation and allowances in consequence ; as well as eventually for reckoning those as promotions in the context of the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees.
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA
31
OA No. 359/2016
22. Nonetheless, the learned Counsel for the Applicants had argued that various Benches of this Tribunal, as well as certain Hon'ble High Courts, had held that the movements from the level of LP(Goods) to the level of LP(Passenger) and thereafter to the level of LP(Mail/Express) were to be deemed as lateral induction and not promotion for the purposes of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees - and hence the same had to be allowed in the present case also. It had been mentioned that the basic decision in this regard had been rendered Vide the Order dated 22.02.2012 of the Hon'ble C.A.T. Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No.484/2011 - which had also been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Judgment dated 20.03.2020. Further, the same analogy had been followed by the C.A.T., Allahabad Bench in O.A. No.1241/2011 (Sachhidanand Ram & Ors. vs UoI & Ors.), which had been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad ;and the the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also dismissed the related SLP, as well as the Review Petition by the Union of India - although without deciding the matter on merit. In addition, the recentOrders- dated 31.01.2024 of the C.A.T., Jodhpur Bench in O.A. No.540/2013 (Pane Soren vs. Union of India & Ors.) and dated 16.05.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal Bench in O.A. No.92/2015 -had also been cited. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had averred that the grant of MACP Scheme for Railway Employees benefits had to follow the substantive rules regarding promotion in any cadre's promotional hierarchy ; and it cannot create a different/parallel promotional hierarchy or permit grant of financial benefits in excess of the promotional structure prescribed by the Recruitment Rules. In this regard, it wascited that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. M.V. Mohanan Nair had categorically upheld the validity and structure of the MACP Scheme ;and held that financial up-gradation under YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 32 OA No. 359/2016 MACP Scheme must strictly conform to the Scheme framed by the Government and cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation. Also, it had been pointed out that the cadre structure as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and clarified vide the administrative instructions issued by the Railway Board inter alia RBE No.109/2009 and No.61/2009 had continued to be in vogue and had not been struck down by any Hon'ble Court. Further, it had been sought to be shown by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Judgments/Orders relied upon by the Applicants were distinguishable, since those were rendered in entirely different factual context, including matters relating to another cadre of Goods Guard or cases involving specific administrative orders applicable only to particular zones. The Judgment passed by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India. vs. K Bhaskaran &other connected cases decided on 20.11.2015, while relying upon D.B. of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court dated 19.07.2013, was with regard to the question whether the movement of a Sr. Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Guard is a promotion or not - hence, the same was not applicable per se to a different cadre in the present case of Loco Pilots. Also, the Order dated 16.05.2024 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.92/2015 was also in a case that pertained to Goods Guards and the controversy was also yet to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in pending SLP(Civil) Diary No.(S)46658/2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs Harbans Lal Verma. Further, related to the Order dated 22.02.2012 of the Hon'ble C.A.T. Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No.484/2011, the Judgment dated 20.03.2020 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. All India Loco Running Staff Association & Ors it was shown that in the said Judgment,vide Para-26 it had specifically been observed that "We once more make it clear that this applies only to the applicants YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 33 OA No. 359/2016 who are employed within the jurisdiction of the CAT at Ernakulam".Hence, it was submitted that the said Judgments cannot be treated as binding precedents for the present case. Moreover, it had also been submitted that vide the recent Order dated 21.01.2025 of the Hon'ble CAT Jabalpur Bench, in O.A. No.382/2013 which was specifically for the Loco Running Staff per se, it had been held in view of the fact that no merger of posts had taken place in the Loco Running Staff under the CPC-VI, their cases would be governed by Para-8 of the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees - whereby the promotions earned in the posts carrying the same Grade Pay in the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose of financial upgradations under MACP Scheme.
23. Therefore, it had emerged that the Orders and Judgments of the various Tribunals and the Hon'ble High Courts cited, apart from being divergent, were rendered mainly in the cases of Goods Guard cadre and not per se for Loco Pilots ;and that the extant RRs for the cadre of Guards and the cadre of Loco Pilots were distinct. Hence, it was not found feasible to interpret that the Orders/Judgments rendered in very different situations of Goods Guard would ipso facto apply to the cadre of LP(Goods). It is also found that the Orders/Judgments of the different Hon'ble Tribunal Benches or Hon'ble High Courts had come to be rendered without the relevant statutory provisionsbeing presented before the Hon'ble Tribunal/High Court Benches - inter alia, the provisions of the respective Recruitment Rules, or the RS(RP) Rules-2008 for fixation of pay under Rule-13 thereof in situations where feeder and promotional posts of railways lay in the same/identical levels in the Pay Matrix, or the related clarificatory guidelines on the detailed procedure to be followed while making those promotions in the same Pay Structure, inter alia allowing YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 34 OA No. 359/2016 for promotional increments and additional allowances etc. as laid down vide the RBE No.95/2013 dated 12.09.2013, the RBE No.54/2014 dated 22.05.2014; or those which had also been carried on in the the RS(RP) Rules-2016pursuant even to the recommendations of the CPC-VII as accepted for implementation and the related RBE No.23/2020 dated 18.02.2020, etc.
24. In the conspectus of the foregoing, in respect of the various aspects of the matter vide the present O.A. No.340/2025, it is found that the basic principle for reckoning the number of financial upgradations under MACP Scheme for Railway Employees for every promotee/joinee in the post of Goods Driver [LP(Goods)]moving from the grade/post of (Diesel/Elec.) Assistant [ALP(Diesel/Elec.)] - whether by regular promotion, i.e. in two steps firstly from the grade/post of ALP(Diesel/Elec.) to the grade/post of Sr.ALP(Diesel/Elec.)/LP(Shunter) and then to the grade/post of LP(Goods) ; or whether by direct promotion from the grade/post of ALP(Diesel/Elec.) - had to be reckoned on the basis of financial upgradations actually allowed, as reflected in their pay fixation and emoluments paid in consequence. Also, it is found that the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways had been found to be in order since the same had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court'sJudgment dated 27.03.2018 in the Civil Appeal No.3321 of 2018 in the case of Mukti Singha (supra) and the issue was no more res integra and hence, the Applicant's challenge to the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways vide the present O.A. was found to not succeed. Further, it had been found that the claim of the Applicant regarding the movements from the level of LP(Goods) to the level of LP(Passenger) and thereafter to the level of LP(Mail/Express) to be deemed as lateral induction and not promotion for the purposes of financial upgradation under the YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 35 OA No. 359/2016 MACP scheme for Railway Employees were not supported by any statutory provisions ; and the Orders/Judgments relied upon by the Applicants were distinguishable as those were rendered in entirely different factual context, including matters relating to another cadre of Goods Guard or cases involving specific administrative orders applicable only to particular Zones - andthose Orders/Judgments were per se not rendered for the cadre of LP (Goods) or for every Zone.
Moreover importantly, it was also found that the Orders/Judgments of the different Hon'ble Tribunal Benches or Hon'ble High Courts had been rendered without the relevant statutory provisions being presented before the Hon'ble Tribunal/High Court Benches - inter alia, the provisions of the respective Recruitment Rules, or the RS(RP) Rules-2008 for fixation of pay under Rule-13 thereof in situations where feeder and promotional posts of railways lay in the same/identical levels in the Pay Matrix, or the related clarificatory guidelines on the detailed procedure to be followed while making those promotions in the same Pay Structure, inter alia allowing for promotional increments and additional allowances etc. as laid down vide the RBE No.95/2013 dated 12.09.2013, the RBE No.54/2014 dated 22.05.2014 ; or those which had also been carried on in the the RS(RP) Rules-2016pursuant even to the recommendations of the CPC-VII as accepted for implementation and the related RBE No.23/2020 dated 18.02.2020, etc.
25. Therefore, we hold that the issue of the number of financial upgradations,to be reckoned till the appointment to the post of LP(Goods) for the Applicants, for the purpose of MACP Scheme for Railway Employees should be decided on the basis of financial upgradations actually allowed to them, as reflected in their pay fixation and emoluments paid in consequence. We order that the YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 36 OA No. 359/2016 Respondents shall examine the facts in this respect as per records and issue a specific Order with adequate reasoning for counting of financial upgradations for the Applicants till their appointment as LP(Goods)as per those actually allowed to them. It is also directed that the same exercise shall be completed and the specific Order issued within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Admissibility of any further financial upgradations to the Applicants shall be reckonable in pursuance of the said specific Order.
We also hold that the issue that an employee shall not be entitled for a Grade Pay under MACP for Railway Employees, which is higher than the Grade Pay for the promotional post in the cadre as per Rules was found to be no more res integra as the law in this regard had already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 27.03.2018 in the Civil Appeal No.3321 of 2018 in the case of Mukti Singha (supra) ; and hence, we hold that the Applicant's challenge to the impugned RBE No.142/2012 dated 13.12.2012 of the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways vide the present O.A. is found to not succeed. Further, in view of the position of statutory provisionsnot been shown to be brought before the Hon'ble Tribunal/High Court Benches- inter alia, the provisions of the respective Recruitment Rules, or the RS(RP) Rules-2008 for fixation of pay under Rule-13 thereof or the related clarificatory guidelines as laid down vide the RBE No.95/2013 dated 12.09.2013, the RBE No.54/2014 dated 22.05.2014 ; or those which had also been carried on in the RS(RP) Rules-2016pursuant to the recommendations of the CPC- VII as accepted for implementation and the related RBE No.23/2020 dated 18.02.2020, etc.- at the stage of determination of the issue of whether the movements from the level of LP(Goods) to the level of LP(Passenger) and thereafter to the level of LP(Mail/Express) were to be deemed as promotion or YOGENDRA SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30' MEENA 37 OA No. 359/2016 not for the purposes of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme for Railway Employees ; and also in view of the aforesaid extant statutory provisions having continued to be in force - we also hold,while being respectfully aware of the several divergent decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal/High Court Benches cited before us,that the aforesaid statutory provisions shall continue to be applicable in the case of the present Applicants. This shall be subject to determination of the related controversy by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pending in SLP(Civil) Diary No.(S)46658/2025 [Union of India & Ors. vs Harbans Lal Verma] to the extent applicable for the present Applicants.
26. Moreover, it is also directed that the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Judgment/Order dated 18.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012 (and other connected SLPs) in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. [AIR 2015 Supreme Court 696] and the extant instructions/guidelines issued in compliance thereto shall continue to apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to any action proposed by the Respondents in consequence.
27. The present O.A. is accordingly disposed of with the Orders and directions as foregoing. Pending, M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ysm/
YOGENDRA
SINGH YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.04.06 16:07:28+05'30'
MEENA