Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sourendra Parija vs East Coast Railway on 30 June, 2025
1 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
Reserved on 24.06.2025 Pronounced on 30.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
In OA 782 of 2023
1. Pradipta Kumar Mishra, aged about 64 years, s/o
Late Ranjan Kumar Mishra, Retired Mail/Express
Guard, permanent resident of Village/Post- Sri
Ramchandrapur, Dist. Puri-752014.
2. Prafulla Kumar Moharana, aged about 64 years,
S/o Late Madhusudan Moharana, Retired
Mail/Express Guard, permanent resident of
Village Badagaon, Post- Ohal, Via-Bamanal, Dist.-
Puri-752106.
3. Pirulu Surendra Patra, aged about 64 years, S/o
late- P. Brundaban Patra, Retired Mail Express
Guard, permanent resident of At Ratanpur, Post-
Kuhuri, P.S- Tangi, Dist.-Khurda-752027.
4. Narayan Mallick, aged about 66 years, Son of Late
Ram Chandra Mallick, Retired Mail/Express
Guard, resident of Shree Hari Vihar, P.O.- Jatni-
752050, Dist.- Khurda.
5. Nilamani Bhuyan, aged about 64 years, Son of
Late Banchanidhi Bhuyan, Retired Mail Express
Guard, under Senior DMO, Khurda Road, resident
of Near Bhagabati Sahoo Mill, At/P.O. Jatni, Dist.-
Khurda-752050.
RAVI KUMAR
2025.06.30 15:45:26
+05'30'
2 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
6. Binapani Tripathy, aged about 58 years, Widow
of Late Nilamani Tripathy, Retired Mail/Express
Guard, resident of Plot No.83/3610, Jagannath
Nagar, Road No.1, Post-GGP Colony, Laxmisagar
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda 751025.
7. Krushna Chandra Das, aged about 67 years, Son
of Late Surendra Das, Retired Mail/Express
Guard, at present C/O.- Bibhuti Parida, New
Malgodown Lane, Sikharpur-753003, Town/
Dist.- Cuttack.
8. Sarat Kumar Patra, aged about 62 years, Son of
Iswar Chandra Patra, Retired Mail Express Guard,
At Gandarpur, P.O. College Square, Town/ Dist.-
Cuttack-753003.
9. Amal Kumar Mitra, aged about 64 years, Son of
Late Pulin Kumar Mitra, Retired Mail/Express
Guard, resident of Dolamundai, Mahatab Road,
New Colony, P.O.- Buxi Bazar, Town/Dist.-
Cuttack-753001.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the General
Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.
Khurda.
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.-Khurda.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, Jatni, Dist-
Khurda-752052.
4. Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At. Jatni, Dist.
Khurda-752052
RAVI KUMAR
2025.06.30 15:45:26
+05'30'
3 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
5. Senior Divisional Operation Manager, East Coast
Railway. Khurda Road Division, At- Jatni, Dist.-
Khurda-752052.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Sahoo, Counsel
In OA 792 of 2023
1. Sourendra Parija, aged about 64 years, S/o Late
Sarat Chandra Parija, Retired Mail/Express
Guard, resident of Village/Post- Shreehari Vihar,
Backside of Bishnumandir, Jatani, khordha, Pin-
752050.
2. Abdul Salim, aged about 68 years, S/o Late
Kareim Muslim, Retired Mail/Express Guard,
resident of Raja Bazar, Khuntia babu gali, Post-
Jatani, Khordha, Pin-752050.
3. Chakunath Nayak, aged about 64 years, S/o Late
Yadunath Nayak, Retired Mail/Express Guard,
resident of At-Mandua, Post Naranpur Kendujhar,
Garh, Kendujhar, Pin-758014.
4. Sk Abdul Rauf, aged about 65 years, S/o Late
Saikh Abdul Rasid, Retired Mail/Express Guard,
resident of Plot No-838, Lane 1, Old Post office
Gali, Chintamaneswar, Post-Budheswar,
Bhubaneswar, Pin-751006.
5. Hemanta Kumar Rath, aged about 74 years, S/o
Late Bhagirathi Rath, Retired Mail/Express
Guard, resident of Laugh At- Om Nagar, Urmila
Colony, Near Dumduma Colony, Line-1,
Berhampur, Pin-761013.
6. Mahendra Kumar Mohanty, aged about 65 years,
S/o Late G.C.Mohanty, Retired Mail/Express
RAVI KUMAR
2025.06.30 15:45:26
+05'30'
4 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
Guard, resident of At-Madhusudan Nagar, Post-
Jatani, Khordha, Pin- 752050.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the General
Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.
Khurda.
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.-Khurda.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, Jatni, Dist-
Khurda-752052.
4. Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At. Jatni, Dist.
Khurda-752052
5. Senior Divisional Operation Manager, East Coast
Railway. Khurda Road Division, At- Jatni, Dist.-
Khurda-752052.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Ms. S.B.Das, Counsel
In OA 47 of 2023
Ummadisetty Desai, aged about 62 years, S/o
Late Ummadisetty Appna, Retired Mail Express
Guard, O/o the Chief Station
Manager/ECoR/Vishakhapatnam, permanent
resident of Golanthara Chatti, Back side of Bank
Colony, PO- Golanthara, PS- Golanthara, Dist-
Ganjam, Odisha-761008.
......Applicant
VERSUS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.06.30 15:45:26
+05'30'
5 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
1. Union of India, represented through the General
Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.
Khurda.
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist.-Khurda.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway,
Khurda Road Division, At/PO-Jatni, Dist-Khurda-
752050.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/PO- Jatni,
Dist-Khurda-752050.
5. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, East Coast
Railway, Waltair Division, At/PO- Dondaparthy,
Waltair, Town/Dist- Vishakhapatanam,
Anderprdesh-530016.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Ms. S.B.Das, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Since common question of facts and laws are involved in these OAs, though, they were heard one after the other, this common order is passed which will govern the field in all the three cases. After giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective parties, perused the records.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 6 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
2. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi vide RBE No. 142/2012 [S.No.PC-VI/307 No. PC- V/2009/ACP/2 dated 13.12.2012] decided as under:
"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 promotional avenues. Thus, financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Schemes CANNOT be to 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."
3. All the applicants, in OA No. 782/2023, are the retired employee of the Railway. While they were in service, applicant No.1 was granted second financial benefit under MACP to GP Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 20.06.2010 and applicant Nos. 2 to 9 were granted w.e.f. 01.09.2008. But, in consequence to the RBE 142/2012, such second financial benefit was withdrawn vide order dated 05.02.2014. They have submitted representations on 03.10.2023 against the order dated 05.02.2014, which were rejected in letter dated 17.10.2023 (A/9) and 24.11.2023(A/10). Thereafter, on 11.12.2023 they have filed this OA praying to (i) quash the corrigendum dated 05.02.2014 RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 7 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 (A/14); (ii) orders of rejection dated 17.10.2023 (A/9) and 24.11.2023(A/10); (iii) to restore 2nd financial upgradation and 3rd financial upgradation from 30 years from the date of their appointment; and (iv) to refix the pay and pay differential arrear salary, DCRG, Leave Salary, Commuted Value of Pension and arrear pension with 12% interest. By placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, applicants have filed MA 729/2023 seeking to condone the delay of more than 9 (Nine) years.
4. Respondents filed their counter stating therein that as per the RBE No. 142/2012 since grant of second financial upgradation to applicants in GP Rs. 4600/- were found to be erroneous one, the same was withdrawn in the year 2014 and the same was set at rest being unchallenged by the applicants. It is stated that the issue is no more res integra since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs. Birendra Kumar & Ors upheld the Railway Board's Letter dated 13.12.2012 vide order dated 27.03.2018 in CA No. 3328- 3329/2018 thereby rejecting the claim of the employees for grant of GP Rs. 4600/- and GP Rs. 4800/- under MACP to the category of Guards. The representations submitted by the applicants were RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 8 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 examined in the light of the RBE and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same were rejected. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA both on limitation as well as merit. Applicants filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondents.
5. In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicants drew our attention to the common order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 18.11.2020 in W.P(C) Nos. 16851/2020 and others wherein the order of dismissal of the OA on the ground of limitation in the matter of financial upgradation was quashed to contend that this being one such case, the delay should not stand on the way for dispensation of justice and, therefore, delay may be condoned and the matter may be adjudicated on merit. He has also drawn our attention to another order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 01.12.2022 in W.P(C) No. 27124/2021 on the above score. This was objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. But, after going through the facts of the cases before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vis a vis the facts of the present case so also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court digested in the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, we find force on the submission of the applicants that the present case being the claim of grant of financial upgrdation comes RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 9 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 within the meaning of recurring cause of action and, therefore, by applying the decisions of the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court, the delay is hereby condoned and MA No. 729/2023 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
6. Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the applicants, at the outset, in course of hearing, has submitted that similar matter came up for consideration before the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in OA Nos. 649 and 716 of 2016. Vide order dated 24.09.2018, the CAT, Hyderabad Bench by placing reliance of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the relief to the said applicants, which was also implemented by the S.C.Railway, Vijayawada Division vide memorandum dated 07.11.2024. The relevant portion of the Hyderabad Bench dated 24.09.2018 is quoted below:
"7. The MACP scheme has been formulated to avoid stagnation. The lateral movement of the applicants with the same GP of Rs.4200 from Senior Goods Guard onwards to Mail/Express Guard would mean stagnation. The respondents stated that the orders tendered by the other Tribunals may not apply to them. However, this Tribunal in OA 977/2012, dated 20.08.2018 has delivered a verdict on the same issue that financial upgradation has to be provided in view of the grade pay being the same from Senior Goods Guard to Express Guard. As the issue has come up once again, it would be pertinent to adduce the observations of the different Benches. Observations of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in WP (A) No. 18244/2013 are as under:
RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 10 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 "Since it has already been held by judicial pronouncements that the post of Senior Goods Guard and Passenger Guard have the same grade pay and the movement of a Senior Goods Guards to the post of Passenger Guard is only a lateral induction and not a promotion, all the private respondents would be taken to have got only one financial upgradation and as per the MACP, they were entitled to two more financial upgradations. This is exactly what has been held by Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in a batch of original applications which was relied upon by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment for the reasons stated above, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
The said judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment dated 29.8.2014 in SLP No. 13421 of 2014. The Ajmer Division of the Railway has implemented the order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide letter No. 656/ET/MACP/Guard/1 dt.13.10.2014. The case is thus fully covered by the judgments stated. In fact, the very philosophy of having MACP was to motivate employees towards better productivity by removing the element of stagnation. In the present case, the stand of the respondents is against this philosophy of the MACP. The observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.9266/2015 dated 9.5.2016, which were extracted in OA 977/2012 of this Tribunal has explained the very percept and foundations of the MACP scheme. We would not like to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. However, the essence of the judgment is that the MACP scheme does away with the reference to the pay scale on regular promotion in the hierarchy of posts in a particular cadre to which the Government servant belongs. It specifically refers to the next higher grade pay in the hierarchy as given in Section 1 Part-A of I Schedule of the Rules which is to be construed as a promotion. Therefore, in view of the judicial pronouncements made and the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the same, we find no reason to prevent relief sought by the applicants in these OAs. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider providing the second and third financial upgradations with all consequential benefits that would flow from granting the said financial upgradations from the dates due to them. This order is to be implemented within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."
RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 11 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023
7. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has also brought to our notice a copy of the memorandum dated 31.01.2025 of S.C.Railway, Secundrabad to contend that similar benefit was also granted to others in pursuance of the common order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 11.12.2023 in W.P.No. 1592 and 1600 of 2019, which was passed on the decision of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench dated 10.10.2018 in OA No. 341 and 858 of 2016 to state that similar benefits having been allowed to the employees of the S.C.Rly., there is no ground to deny the same to the applicants. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents did not controvert the aforesaid orders passed by the S.C.Rly. in implementation of the decisions referred to above on the similar issue as in the present case.
8. It is a cardinal principle of judicial discipline, as established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 644, that precedents must be strictly adhered to. The Apex Court has unequivocally stated the following:-
"At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 12 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement."
9. It is settled law that once a benefit has been granted to a specific group of employees, that same benefit must be extended to those who are similarly situated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in the case of Amrit Lal Berry Vs Collector Of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 714, as under:
"We may, however, observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of a Government Department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law is his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the Department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to Court."
10. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985 (2) SCC 648, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"...those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 13 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court ."
11. In a latter case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn (Direct Recruit) Vs. State of UP, (2006) 10 SCC 346, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha, 2006 (2) SCC 747, as under:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
12. In views of the facts and law discussed above, we have no hesitation to set aside the corrigendum dated 05.02.2014 (A/14) withdrawing the second financial upgradation granted to the applicants under MACP, order of rejections dated 17.10.2023 (A/9) and 24.11.2023(A/10), which are impugned in this OA and we do so. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to restore the second financial upgradation in respect of the applicants and consider granting them 3rd MACP as per their eligibility and other consequential service and financial benefits within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to be submitted by the applicants. Insofar as the prayer for payment of RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 14 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 interest is concerned, we do not find any justification in view of the discussions to grant the same and the said prayer is rejected. OA No. 792/2023
13. All the applicants are the retired employee of the railways. They were granted financial upgradation under MACP vide order dated 23.09.2010 (A/3) were being found subsequently not entitled to as per RBE No. 142/2012, the said order dated 23.09.2010 was revised vide order dated 05.02.2014 (A/4). After their retirement from service, taking into consideration the decision on the similar matter in case of others, they submitted representation on 03.10.2023 praying for restoration of their second and third financial upgradation, which having been rejected on 17.10.2023 and 24.11.2023, they filed this OA on 15.12.2023, i.e. after about nine years of the date of withdrawal of the MACP praying for direction to the respondents, (i) quash the corrigendum dated 05.02.2014 (A/4);
(ii) orders of rejection dated 17.10.2023 (A/9) and 24.11.2023(A/10); (iii) to restore grant 3rd financial upgradation and
(iv) to refix the pay and pay differential arrear salary, DCRG, Leave Salary, Commuted Value of Pension and arrear pension with 12% RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 15 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 interest. By filing MA 736/2023, they have also prayed for condonation of delay in filing this OA.
14. After hearing and upon perusal of records, since we find that facts and prayer made in this OA being same and similar to that of OA No. 782/2023 and MA No. 729/2023, as per the discussions made in the said case, as above, the nine years delay is hereby condoned in this OA. The impugned corrigendum dated 05.02.2014, the order of rejections dated 17.10.2023 and 24.11.2023 are hereby quashed. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to restore the third financial upgradation in respect of the applicants and grant them the financial benefits, without any interest, within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from the applicants.
OA 47/2023
15. After completion of the pleadings, this OA was also heard along with OA No. 782/2023 and OA No. 792/2023. Heard and perused the records.
16. We find that the facts and issued involved in this OA is same and similar to that of OA No. 782/2023 and OA No. 792/2023. In view of the discussions made in these two OAs, as above, the delay of RAVI KUMAR 2025.06.30 15:45:26 +05'30' 16 O.A.Nos. 260/00782, 792 and 47 of 2023 about nine years is hereby condoned and MA No. 46/2023 is accordingly disposed of. Also, as per the discussions made in OA No. 782/2023 and OA No. 792/2023, as above, the impugned corrigendum dated 05.02.2014 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the third financial upgradation of the applicant and pay him the financial benefits, without any interest, within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from the applicant.
17. In the result, the OA Nos. 782/2023, 792/2023 and 47/2023 stand allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.06.30 15:45:26
+05'30'