Orissa High Court
Union Of India And Others vs East Coast Railway on 27 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17872 of 2024
Union of India and others .... Petitioners
Mr.Karunakar Nayak,
Senior Panel Counsel
-versus-
East Coast Railway
Engineers Association
through its General
Secretary-Er. Bishnu
Prasad Dash and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr.N.R. Routray, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.03.2025
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging
the order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter
'Tribunal' in short) in O.A. No. 260/485 of 2021.
It appears that the East Coast Railway Engineers
Association along with the Executive Body Members
approached the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A.
No.260/00485 of 2021 challenging the speaking order dated
18.08.2021 in denying the claim of the applicants to count the
in-service training period as qualifying service for grant of
financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme with effect from
their respective dates of training before being appointed after
successful completion of training in the post against which
they were selected through Railway Recruitment Board with
further prayer for a direction to the respondents in the
Original Application (who are the petitioners in this writ
petition) to compute the in-service/post-appointment training
period as qualifying service for grant of financial upgradation
under MACP Scheme for Junior Engineers and Senior Section
Engineers of East Coast Railway and to direct the respondents
to antedate the financial upgradations granted to the
applicants under MACP Scheme in view of computation of in-
service/post-appointment training period as qualifying service
and to pay differential arrear salary.
The petitioners, who were respondents in the said
Original Application, filed counter affidavit taking the stand
that the applicants are not entitled to get such benefit.
However, the learned Tribunal relying on the judgments
passed in O.A. No. 192/2010 (Chittaranjan Mohanty Vrs.
Union of India and others) disposed of on 22.03.2012 upheld
by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2013 passed in W.P.(C)
No.12425 of 2012 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P
(Civil) No. 11040 of 2013 vide order dated 02.08.2013 and
subsequent O.A. No.924 of 2013 (Parsuram Nayak Vrs. Union
of India and others) disposed of on 07.04.2016 upheld by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 19250 of 2016 vide order dated
08.03.2017 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP/Diary No.
23168 of 2017 vide order dated 15.09.2017, batch of writ
petitions in W.P.(C) No. 16565 of 2016 (Union of India Vrs.
Bhagaban Mishra) disposed of on 01.05.2017 and confirmed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P No. 28896 of 2019
vide order dated 22.10.2019 and the order dated 06.12.2022
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 27118 of 2021 have held
that since the issues have been settled, the applicants are
entitled to count their qualifying service for the purpose of
financial upgradation under MACP w.e.f. their respective dates
of joining in the training after being qualified through RRB and
joining in the post on their successful completion of training.
Accordingly, the rejection order dated 18.08.2021 was
quashed and the respondents were directed to revisit the
grant of financial upgradation under MACP by counting the
qualifying period of 10, 20 and 30 years from their initial date
of joining and accordingly, fix their pay as per rules and pay
them the differential amount within a period of 180 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Mr.Karunakar Nayak, learned Senior Panel Counsel
appearing for the Union of India submits that the issues
involved in the earlier Original Applications, which were
confirmed by this Court so also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
are different than the present one and therefore, the learned
Tribunal was not justified in relying on the findings given by
the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Applications and
by this Court in different writ petitions so also the observation
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special
Leave Petitions.
On going through the nature of prayer sought for in
this writ petition and on perusing the findings given by the
learned Tribunal in the earlier Original Applications and the
observation made by this Court in different writ petitions so
also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special
Leave Petitions, we are not convinced to accept the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Thus, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
warranting our interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same stands
dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
PKSahoo
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
