Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. Mr. Dasgupta has supported the impugned judgement of the CAT and has submitted that on an erroneous interpretation of the MACP Scheme the petitioner was wrongly granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 5400/-, which were subsequently corrected in the light of the letter dated 30.04.2012, which was also challenged before the CAT. Mr. Dasgupta has drawn the attention of the court to the tabular form, which is forming a part of paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition, to indicate which promotions earned by the petitioner were ignored and which promotions were considered while granting the 3rd financial up-gradation with Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. He submits that all the promotions earned by the petitioner before establishment of the IT Cadre cannot be ignored, as is sought to be contended by the petitioner, and that any promotion/financial up-gradation that had to be ignored for the purpose of MACP Scheme would have to be guided by Clause 5 of the MACP Scheme. It is also contended by him that the petitioner was never placed as Junior Engineer (IT) Grade-II, which was shown as entry grade in WP(C) 934/2015 Page No. 107 of the writ petition, and the petitioner was absorbed as Senior Engineer (IT) Grade-II inasmuch as the petitioner was already enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 6500- 10500/-, which is also the pay scale assigned to Senior Engineer (IT) Grade-II. His further contention is that though in the revised classification, Junior Engineer (IT) Grade-II has been shown as the entry grade in the IT Cadre, yet the same does not mean that MACP Scheme has to be implemented taking that grade as a basis as, in such event, the question of completion of 10 years/20 years/30 years for the purpose of enabling one to claim financial up-gradation, subject to fulfillment of other conditions, could not have arisen as the petitioner had not completed even 10 years after formation of the IT Cadre. He further submits that as the CAT had considered the case of the petitioner on merits, in the facts and circumstance of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is prejudiced and can still raise the question of violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Dasgupta has emphasized that the petitioner enjoyed the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- and had also produced the Service Book to demonstrate the same and, it is in this context, he submits that, in all probability, at Page No. 42 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondents, Grade Pay has been wrongly recorded as Rs. 4200/- against the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/-. He has also submitted that the judgements relied on by the petitioner were in the context of the fact situations arising in such cases and the same do not inure to the benefit of the petitioner in any case. With regard to the case of Samarandra Chakraborty, he contends that assuming that he was granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-, in absence of adequate pleading establishing that he is identically placed with the petitioner, by reason of the same the petitioner will not be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.

20. Before we proceed further, it will be only appropriate to give a brief outline of the MACP Scheme relevant for our purpose.

21. The Sixth CPC had recommended MACP Scheme in terms of which financial up- gradation would be available in the next higher Grade Pay whenever an employee completes twelve years of continuous service in the same grade, also providing that not more than two financial up-gradations shall be given in the entire service career. The MACP Scheme will be available to all posts belonging to Grade-A. The Government had considered the recommendations of the Sixth CPC for introduction of MACP Scheme and had accepted the same with modification to grant three financial up-gradations under the MACP Scheme at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous service. Accordingly, MACP Scheme for regular employees was introduced which was in supersession of the previous Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The MACP Scheme was made operational with effect from 01.09.2008. The ACP Scheme, which was called "ACP Scheme of October 1999", was to be operational till 31.08.2008, which, in other words, means that the financial up-gradation as per the provisions of the ACP Scheme would be granted till 31.08.2008. Completion of 10, 20 and 30 years was to be counted from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade and the financial up-gradation is admissible whenever a person had spent ten years continuously in the same Grade Pay. What is regular service is indicated at Clause 9 of the MACP Scheme.

24. The career progression of the petitioner as reflected in the chart above is not disputed by the petitioner, but what is contested is consideration of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Senior DEO from DEO as the first promotion and to treat his absorption as SE(IT) in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- as the case of first promotion for the purpose of MACP Scheme instead of as a case of second promotion as considered by the respondents.

25. The post of DEO carried a pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- in the Fifth CPC. In Sixth CPC, the said scale is placed on PB-1 in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay WP(C) 934/2015 of Rs. 2800/-. It is significant to note that in Sixth CPC the said pay scale has not been merged with the next higher scale which is Rs. 9300-34800/-. The Grade Pay is also not Rs. 2800/- but varies from Rs. 4200/-, Rs. 4600/-, Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 5400/-. The substratum of the argument of Mr. Dutta is that all promotions earned earlier prior to his induction in IT Cadre in which Junior Engineer (IT) Grade-II has been shown to be the entry grade is to be ignored. The argument is fallacious. In the first place, factually, it is not the case presented by the petitioner that from the post of DPS he was placed in the post of Junior Engineer (IT) Grade-II. It is the own case of the petitioner at paragraph 4.1.2. of the Original Application that he had been deployed (respondents have used the expression "absorbed") in the new IT Cadre as Senior Engineer (IT) Grade-II. Under the MACP Scheme, there shall be three financial up-gradations, counted from the Direct Entry Grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years, respectively, and such up-gradations will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same Grade Pay. Direct Entry, as is referred to in the MACP Scheme, cannot be correlated to any subsequent revision of classification of posts also indicating that a particular post will be a post in the Entry Grade. The petitioner was absorbed in the IT Cadre, in which Junior Engineer (IT) Grade-II is a post, only on 01.04.2005 and if the petitioner's contention is to be accepted then for him the period of 10 years starts from that date. To overcome that, it is also sought to be contended that for the purpose of MACP the entire service period has to be, otherwise, reckoned. In other words, the contention advanced is that the respondents should ignore all promotions earned earlier but should take the total length of service for the purpose of MACP. This is not the object and purport of the MACP Scheme. Clause 5, which deals with promotions earned earlier, provides that if due to merger of pay scales/up-gradations of posts recommended by the Sixth CPC, promotions earned/up- gradations granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those Grades which now carry the same Grade Pay will have to be ignored. If it is not to the same Grade Pay, it cannot be ignored. Therefore, promotion from the post of DEO in the pay scale of Rs. 4500- 7000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- to the post of Senior DEO in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- has to be considered as one promotion.

27. In G.R. Mahesh (supra), the Ernakulam Bench of the CAT had interpreted Clauses 5 and 8 of the MACP scheme and had observed that though there may be seeming conflict between the two provisions, actually there was no conflict inasmuch as Clause 5 applies to a situation where there is merger of two or more pay scales, while such a merger is not there in respect of the pay scales of promotional post and the feeder post in respect of Clause 8 and thus the two provisions are compatible as they are functioning in two different planes. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Union of India Vs. K. Bhaskar and other connected cases (supra), had relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court wherein also Clause 5 and Clause 8 had fallen for consideration. In the said case movement of a Senior Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Goods Guard was held to be not a promotion, but a lateral induction. In the fact situation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court accepted the proposition that lateral induction cannot be equated with promotion. In D. S. Rawat (supra), it was highlighted that notwithstanding any promotion granted, if the Grade Pay remains the same, in terms of the MACP Scheme the employee would be WP(C) 934/2015 entitled to up-gradation of Grade Pay. It is also observed that while computing or counting financial up-gradation for the purpose of MACP Scheme, the missed Grade Pay would be considered. The ratio of the above cases is not applicable in the facts of the instant case.