Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the judgment it has also been stated that without considering the advantages in the MACP scheme, the High Court erred in interfering with the government policy by simply placing reliance upon the Rajpal case. It is also held by Hon‟ble Apex Court that Rajpal case cannot be treated as precedent. Therefore, the learned standing counsel submits that the orders/judgment based on Rajpal‟s case, i.e., S. Balakrishnan case is not applicable to the present case. Further it is submitted that the order passed in case of R. Chandrasekaran cannot be termed as order in rem. As such the respondents have withdrawn the grant of benefit of 3rd MACP in the case of said R Chandrasekaran and aggrieved by it, he has filed another OA before CAT, Chennai Bench wherein no relief has been granted till date.

(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA No.272/2021) 8.1 Consequent upon the implementation of Sixth CPC‟s recommendations, grade pay of Rs. 5400 is now in two pay- bands viz., PB-2 and PB-3. The grade pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 and Rs. 5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of upgradations under MACP Scheme"

11. In the present case, it emerges from the record that after introduction of MACPs, the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, dated 16.9.2009 with the approval of the Department of Expenditure issued clarification on grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on Non-functional basis to Group „B‟ Officers of CBEC including Superintendent of Customs after four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 to the effect that the higher Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on Non-functional basis is not linked to vacancy and may be given with retrospective w.e.f. , i.e., 01.01.2006 provided the officer concerned has (i) completed minimum four years of regular service as on 01.01.2006 as Custom Appraiser/ Superintendent of Central Excise/Superintendent of Customs (P) irrespective of the pay scale attached to the post, and (ii) is clear from vigilance angle.

3 The Board‟s letter of even number dated 26.05.2015 addressed to Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Zone in the case of Shri R Chandrasekaran has been treated as withdrawn.

4 All Cadre controlling Authorities are requested to take appropriate action to settle MACP cases accordingly. Also, appropriate action may be taken to defend the cases, emerging out of the case of Shri R Chandrasekaran, on behalf of Union of India.

This issues with the approval of Chairman, CBEC.

Yours faithfully, (A K Quasin) Deputy Secretary to Government of India."

14.7 It is noticed that pursuant to aforesaid decision dated 20.06.2016, respondents have withdrawn the grant of benefit of 3rd MACP in case of R Chandrasekaran and also implemented the said decision by taking action in the case of applicants who are similarly placed and the benefit of 3rd MACP granted to them were also withdrawn by way of recovery. The core ground advanced by the respondents to do so is the mandate of para 8.1 of MACP policy, which stipulates that any financial up-gradation needs to be considered as one separate financial up-gradation under the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA No.272/2021) MACP.