Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.02 seconds)Union Of India vs Mukti Singha on 15 December, 2017
In view of the discussions above, the prayer in the OA to set aside
the Railway Board circular dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure A-1) cannot be
accepted in view of the judgment dated 27.3.2018 of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Mukti Singha in Civil
Appeal No. (s) 3321 of 2018, which is cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents. But as held in the judgment dated 27.3.2018 of Hon'ble
Apex Court, the benefit of MACP already allowed to the applicants shall
not be recovered from the applicants. Further, following the judgment
dated 19.7.2013 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the Writ-A No.
18244/2013, we direct the respondents to consider extending the benefit
of financial upgradation of MACP to the applicants who are eligible for the
same, in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 19.7.2013 and keeping in
view the discussions in para 24 above.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of Rajasthan vs Fateh Chand Soni on 12 December, 1995
10. Shri B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No.
331/2015, argued with reference to the guidelines of MACP, in which the
para 5 of the Annexure containing the guidelines on MACP, will be
applicable for the promotions in merged pay scales would be ignored, if
these promotions had occurred before 1.1.2006. He argued that for
promotions after 1.1.2006, the para 8 of the guidelines would be
applicable, which states that even promotions in the same grade pay are
to be counted. Shri Tiwari also argued that at the time of promotions to
different posts of Guards with the same grade pay, the applicants have
been financially benefitted by promotion by way of one increment and
31
higher allowances etc. Hence, having got the benefit of promotion once,
the applicants cannot be given the benefit of MACP again as it is against
the guidelines and rules. He also highlighted the argument that different
posts of Guards for Goods train, Passenger train and Mail/Express train
involved promotion with higher responsibility and higher financial benefits
and hence, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Fateh Chand
Soni (supra), these are to be considered to be promotion within same
grade pay, which need to be counted as per para 8 of the guidelines dated
10.6.2009 (Annexure A-2) relating to MACP.
Khirod Ku. Patra And Others vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And ... on 16 April, 2015
21. The similar issue of admissibility of the MACP benefits to the
railway Guards, who have availed promotion in the same pay band and
grade pay was decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in order dated
19.7.2013 in the case of Union of India thru G.M. E.C.R. and Ors. vs.
Central Administrative Tribunals and Ors. in the Writ-A No. 18244/2013
arising out of the order passed by this Tribunal in the OA No. 1241/2011 in
the case of Sachidananda Ram and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors.
Hon'ble High Court has noted that by virtue of various judicial
pronouncements which have been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, it has
been settled that the movement of Senior Goods Guard to the post of
Passenger Guard is not a promotion and it is a lateral induction. It is also
held as under:-
Mitali Ghosh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 June, 2017
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mitali Ghosh
(supra) had held as under:-
Suresh Kumar Son Of Shri Rikhi Ram vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2016
In this regard, the Railway Board issued a clarification regarding
this issue vide the circular dated 10.2.2011 as discussed in the order
dated 11.9.2-18 of this Tribunal in the case of Rikhi Ram and others vs.
Union of India and others in OA No. 1253/2013, which has also been cited
by the learned counsel for the applicant. The circular dated 10.2.2011
stated as under:-
Smt. Mukti Singha vs Union Of India & Others on 11 July, 2017
16. The Civil Appeal in the case of Mukti Singha (supra) had arisen
from the order dated 11.7.2017 of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case
33
of Smt. Mukti Singha vs. Union of India & Others in which order dated
14.6.2017 in another similar case Mitali Ghosh & Ors vs Union Of India &
Ors. reported in (indiankanoon.org/doc/181733682) was followed 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.
Raj Pal Sharma vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 21 January, 2009
20. As discussed earlier, the respondents had allowed the benefit of
MACP to some of the applicants, which have been cancelled/withdrawn
subsequently and the amount paid to the applicants was proposed to be
recovered. But due to interim orders passed by this Tribunal staying the
effect and operation of the circular dated 13.12.2012, the respondents
could not recover the excess amount paid to the applicants from the
salary. As submitted by Shri S. Narain, learned counsel for the applicants,
the respondents have withheld the amount from the retirement benefits of
the applicants who have retired or going to retire as stated in para 4.37 of
the OA and some of the guards have been allowed the benefit of MACP
by virtue of the Court orders as stated in paragraphs 4.4 - 4.7 and 4.38 of
the OA. These contentions have not been specifically rebutted by the
respondents in the Counter Reply. As stated in para 4.38 of the OA, the
issue of entitlement of the railway Guards for MACP has been settled vide
the order of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1038/CH/2010 in
the case of Raj Pal vs. Union of India, which has been upheld by Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court and the SLP filed by the respondents was
dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.