Orissa High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Kanhu Charan Das And Another on 21 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 6390 of 2020
Union of India and others ..... Petitioners
Mr. D. Rath, CGC
Vs.
Kanhu Charan Das and another ..... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
21.07.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. Heard Mr. D. Rath, learned Central Government Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners.
3. The Union of India and its functionaries being the
Petitioners, have filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order
dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 702 of 2012, by which
direction was given to them to consider the case of Opposite Party
No.1 for 3rd up-gradation under the MACP Scheme in accordance
with the extant Rules and Guidelines on the issue and as per the
Judgment dated 5.8.2014 of Delhi High Court in the case of Union
of India v. Shakeel Ahmad Burney (W.P.(C) No. 4131 of 2014)
and communicate their decision to Opposite Party No.1 through a
speaking and reasoned order within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
4. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Opposite Party
No.1 joined the service initially in the cadre of Postman, vide order
dated 30.10.1974, and thereafter joined as Clerk on 05.10.1979,
pursuant to the order dated 04.10.1979. In the Gradation list dated
31.10.2008, Opposite Party No.1 was shown senior to one Pitabas
Mishra by placing them at serial Nos. 9 and 10 of the Gradation
list. Both of them availed the benefit of the TBOP and BCR
Schemes under which the Pay Scales of the employees, after
completion of certain number of years of service, are upgraded to
the next higher scale. The Government introduced the MACP
Scheme, vide Office Memorandum dated 18.9.2009, with effect
from 01.09.2008. The case of Opposite Party No.1 is that the
benefit of the MACP Scheme was extended to the junior-Sri
Pitabas Mishra, but Opposite Party No.1 was denied such benefit.
Opposite Party No.1 filed a representation dated 30.9.2009
followed by a reminder stating therein that his case is covered by
the order dated 22.5.2012 of Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal.
5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the present
Petitioners filed their Counter Affidavit stating therein that though
Opposite Party No.1 is claiming the benefit of 3rd MACP at par
with his juniors, but as per the Guidelines, under the MACP
Scheme, the up-gradation benefit is personal to an employee and
no senior can claim higher pay/grade pay under MACP on the
ground that his junior was allowed the same benefit. It was further
stated that Opposite Party No.1 had availed one promotion when
he was posted as Clerk from Postman and then availed two
financial up-gradations under TBOP and BCR, for which, he
cannot get one more up-gradation under MACP, since as per the
guidelines of MACP, an employee can get maximum three
promotions or up- gradations. But the said fact was controverted by
Opposite Party No.1 by filing the Rejoinder Affidavit and citing
several Judgments. It was stated by Opposite Party No.1 that his
claim is covered under the said judgments and hence he is entitled
to the benefit at par with similarly placed employee. Opposite
Party No.1 cited the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 200/2013, claiming that the
said case is similar to his case. It was also stated that an employee
under similar circumstances as Opposite Party No.1, has been
allowed the benefit of 3rd up-gradation under MACP.
Consequentially he relied on the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA 1088/2011
(D.Sivakumar v Union of India & Ors.) and the order of High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No.30629/2014.
6. The Tribunal, after going through the pleadings available on
record, considered the same in extenso and passed the order
directing the Petitioners to consider the case of Opposite Party
No.1 for 3rd up-gradation under the MACP Scheme in accordance
with the extant Rules and Guidelines on the issue and as per the
Judgment dated 5.8.2014 of Delhi High Court in the case of
Shakeel Ahmad Burney and communicate their decision to
Opposite Party No.1 through a speaking and reasoned order within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. It appears that instead of deciding the matter within a period
of three months with regard to the applicability of the Judgment of
the Delhi High Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmad Burney, the
Petitioners filed this Writ Petition assailing the impugned order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal under Annexure-4
to this Writ Petition. There is no doubt that Opposite Party No.1
was appointed initially as a Postman and thereafter appointed as a
Clerk and as per the Judgment of the Tribunal of Madras Bench
and the High Court of Madras, as well as the High Court of Delhi,
similarly situated employees had been allowed the benefit of
MACP. Such orders of the respective High Courts have been
upheld by the apex Court. But the same was not adhered to in the
case of Opposite Party No.1 by the Authorities.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Tribunal is well justified in passing the impugned order,
which does not require any interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly the Writ Petition merits no consideration and
the same stands dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun/Banita (S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
