WP(C)/4768/2020
2022 Latest Caselaw 2536 Gua

                                                                           Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010160382020




                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)


                              WP(C) NO.4768        OF   2020
                              1. The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, Ministry
                              of Textiles, Government of India, Central Silk Board
                              Complex, BTM Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore - 560068.
                              2. The Deputy Director (A&A), Central Silk Board,
                              Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Central Silk
                              Board Complex, BTM Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore -
                              560068.
                              3. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to
                              the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, New
                              Delhi - 110001.
                              4. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
                              Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi -
                              110001.
                                                                       ...Appellants
                                        -Versus-

                              Shri Ramesh Chandra Boro,
                              Upper Division Clerk, Muga Silk Warm Seeds
                              Organisation, Central Silk Board, Guwahati - 781038.
                                                                  ........Respondent

-B E F O R E -

                HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

   For the Appellants          : Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate.
   For Respondent              : Mr. S. Choudhury, Advocate.

   Date of Judgment & Order    : 28th July, 2022.
                                                                      Page No.# 2/7

                           JUDGMENT & ORDER

(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00189/2015, the petitioners /respondents before the Tribunal has preferred this writ petition.

2. The following notes of the facts can be culled out from the record of this petition. The sole respondent herein was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 28.09.1996 with the petitioner Board in North Eastern Region. The record indicates that on completion of tenure of

service, the respondent was granted benefit of 1st MACP in terms of the Government of India's Office Memorandum No.35034/ 3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2019. The respondent on basis of such benefit accrued was

granted the benefit of 1st MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- in Pay Band- 1 of Rs.5,200 - Rs.20,200/- instead of Grade Pay of Rs.2,500/- in the Pay Band-1 of Rs.5,200 - 20,200/- with effect from 01.09.2008. It was the grievance of the respondent that he should have been granted Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- in the Pay Band of Rs.5,200 - 20,200/-. However, the same was denied.

3. The petitioners herein filed their written statement and contended before the Tribunal that the respondent herein is not entitled to such benefits under the Scheme. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, allowed the Original Application by relying upon the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Original Application No.1038/CH/2010 in the case of Raj Pal -Vs- Union of Page No.# 3/7

India & Ors., which was affirmed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Apex Court and also relying upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati passed in Original Application No.75/2013 in Rajini Kanta Deka -Vs- Union of India & Ors., which was also came to be affirmed by the High Court of Meghalaya. The Tribunal was pleased to direct the petitioners herein to decide the present issue in accordance with the aforesaid decisions after examining the case of the respondent and if found similarly situated, similar benefits be granted to the respondent. The Tribunal also provided in the impugned judgment & order that the respondent would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- which is the Grade Pay of the promotional post of UDC. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.

4. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

5. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of this petition and has submitted that the respondent is not entitled to the financial benefits, as prayed for in the Original Application. Mr. B. Pathak further contended that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. -Vs- M.V. Mohanan Nair, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4751/2020. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the judgments, which are relied upon by the Tribunal is not a good law and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the Page No.# 4/7

case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) contended that the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in Raj Pal (supra) and Rajini Kanta Deka (supra) is not a good law and the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the same and has come to the conclusion that the respondent would be entitled to Grade Pay Rs.2,400/- and also the benefit of upgradation of pay. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Pathak has contended that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment & order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment & order and has reiterated the contentions raised before the Tribunal. Mr. Choudhury has contended that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to Grade Pay Rs.2,400/- and that the respondent is also entitled for the benefit of MACP for upgradation of pay. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that all that the Tribunal has done is that it has directed the authorities to consider the case of the respondent. However, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent was not in a position to dispute that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the very petitioners before us.

7. No other or further submissions, contentions or grounds have been raised by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

8. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned judgment & order passed by the Tribunal, it is found that the Page No.# 5/7

Tribunal has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Raj Pal (supra) and its own judgment in Rajini Kanta Deka (supra) and on that very basis, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the Original Application filed by the respondent.

9. It would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.4751/2020, wherein after considering the judgment of Raj Pal and Ved Prakash (supra) and so also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the respondent therein similarly situated and working in the petitioner Board was not entitled to the benefits and has been pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioners Board in the said case. In Paragraphs 6 and 7, the Division Bench has observed thus:-

"6. The Apex Court held that the ACP Scheme had been superseded by the MACP Scheme and which is a matter of Government Policy. The Apex Court held that interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commissioner and its recommendations for the MACP, will have serious impact on the public exchequer. The Apex Court held that since the MACP Scheme as recommended by the Pay Commission has been accepted by the Government and there is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting any interference, the High Courts had erred in interfering with the Government's Policy in accepting the recommendations of the 6th CPC by simply placing reliance on Raj Pal's case. The impugned orders, accordingly, were held to be not sustainable and were therefore held liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, all the impugned orders passed by the various High Courts including the orders passed in Raj Pal's case by Punjab and Haryana High Court and Rajani Kanta Deka passed by the Meghalaya High Court were all interfered with and the appeals preferred by the Union of India were allowed. The Apex Court further Page No.# 6/7

directed that the certain anomalies on implementation of MACP Scheme which had been brought to the notice of the Joint Committee in the various meetings of the Joint Committee, Union of India, were directed to be considered by the DoP&T as deemed appropriate and to take a decision in accordance with law.

7. The learned counsels at the bar are in agreement that the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair being Civil Appeal No. 2016/2020 dated 05.03.2020 reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421 and the directions contained therein will also cover the issue raised in the present writ petition and the same can also be disposed of in terms of the said orders passed by the Apex Court. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are extracted below:

56. The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like the Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme, would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference. Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the Government's policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal case [Union of India v. Raj Pal, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 14580] . The impugned orders [Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 11713] , [Union of India v. Reeta Devi, CWP No. 24278 of 2013, order dated 7-11-2013 (P&H)] , [Union of India v. Rajini Kanta Deka, 2014 SCC OnLine Megh 269] , [Union of India v. M. Swarnalatha, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 746] , [Nagendra Pati Tripathy v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 4799] , [Union of India v. G.V.S.S. Anand, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 745] cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

57. In the result, all the impugned orders [Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 11713] , [Union of India v. Reeta Devi, CWP No. 24278 of 2013, order dated 7-11- 2013 (P&H)] , [Union of India v. Rajini Kanta Deka, 2014 SCC OnLine Megh 269] , [Union of India v. M. Swarnalatha, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 746] , [Nagendra Pati Tripathy v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 4799] , [Union of India v. G.V.S.S. Anand, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 745] in these batch of appeals arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 21803, 22181, 23335, 23333 of 2014, 18227 of 2015, 31125 of 2016 and SLP (C) Diary No. 6042 of 2017 are set Page No.# 7/7

aside and the appeals preferred by the Union of India are allowed. Consequently, appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 33706 of 2016 is disposed of. No costs.

58. However, as pointed out earlier in paras 52 to 54, since certain anomalies on implementation of the MACP Scheme have been brought to the notice of the Joint Committee in the various meetings of the Joint Committee, the Union of India and DoP&T to consider the same as they deem it appropriate and take a decision in accordance with law."

10. In the facts of this case also similar fact situation arises and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) would be applicable and the respondent would not be entitled to any upgradation in pay as held by the Tribunal. In light of the aforesaid, even the direction issued by the Tribunal to consider the case of the respondent/original applicant deserves to be interfered with.

11. In light of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment & order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00189/2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                        CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant