MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT ON WRIT PETITION FILED IN HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH/ ERNAKULAM. 

Dear friends,

Shri Umesh Chandrakar of Bhubaneswar has informed that three SLP  have been filed by DOPT  in Supreme Court recently  vide SLP No.10435 of 2014, 10436 of 2014 & 10791 of 2014 after  dismissing the case by Punjab & Haryana High Court on November, 2013. 

The writ petition filed by the Government in Ernakulam Bench of Kerala High Court also dismissed.

Copy of the judgments of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Kerala High Court Ernakulam Bench are given below:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.24278 of 2013

Date of Decision: November 07, 2013

Union of India and another .................Petitioners

versus

Smt.Reeta Devi and another ..............Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

Present : Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the petitioners.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

---

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition

Nos.24253, 24278 and 24279 of 2013 as common questions of

law and facts and involved in these cases.

For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil

Writ Petition no.24278 of 2013.

The order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in OA

No.12/CH/2013 is under challenge in this writ petition. Vide

the said order, the Tribunal has accepted the claim of 1st

respondent for the grant of MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008.

A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal

unveils that the OA was allowed following an earlier decision

dated 9.5.2013 rendered in OA No.821/CH/2012 which, in turn,

was allowed on the basis of yet another decision dated

31.05.2011 passed in OA No.1038/CH/2010 (Raj Pal versus

CWP No.24278 of 2013 & connected cases [2]

Union of India and others.

It is not in dispute that the order passed by the

Tribunal in Raj Pal's case (supra), was challenged before this

Court in CWP No.19387-CAT of 2011 which was dismissed by a

Co-ordinate Bench vide a self-speaking order dated

19.10.2011. The Special Leave Petition preferred by Union of

India against that order was also declined by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court though being barred by limitation.

For the reasons already assigned by this Court in

Raj Pal's case (Supra) we do not find any merit in this writ

petition.

Dismissed.

[SURYA KANT]

JUDGE

[SURINDER GUPTA]

 JUDGE

November 07, 2013 

Mohinder J

IN THE KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

                                                  &

  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

  MONDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/3RD ASHADHA, 1935

                                OP (CAT).No. 2000 of 2013 (Z)

                                    ----------------------------

  AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 816/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE

                               TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

                                 ======================

PETITIONERS:

         1. UNION OF INDIA    REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

  MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION 

  DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NEW DELHI-110011

        2. THE PRPINCIPAL REGISTRAR

            CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRICIPAL BENCH

            61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-110001

        3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

            CENTRAL ADMINITRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

            SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017

            BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

RESPONDENT:

----------------------

            M.V MOHANAN NAIR

            S/O.M.R.VISHWANATHAN NAIR, PHOTO COPIER

            CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

            COHCIN-682017, R/A.LAKSHMI GEETH, P O MARAVANTHURUTHU

            VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST-686608

            R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY

            THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2013, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (CAT).No. 2000 of 2013 (Z)

                                           APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

-------------------------------------

EXT.P1:-             TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO 816/2012 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

EXT.P2:-             TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIOENRS  IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO 816/ OF 2012

EXT.P3:-             TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/1/2013 IN OA NO 816/2012 OF THE CERNTAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , ERNAKULAM

EXT.P4:-  TRUE COPY FO THE MACP SCHEME NO 35034/3/2008-ESTT(D) DATED  19/5/2009

EXT.P5:-             TRUE COPY OF THE OLD ACP SCHEME

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

---------------------------------------

NIL

                                               // TRUE COPY //  P.A. TO JUDGE

SD

  

               THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

                      BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

         ....................................................................

                       OP(CAT) No.2000 of 2013

         ....................................................................

              Dated this the 24th day of June, 2013.

                               J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

  Raj  Pal,     Ved Prakash        and       the     respondent         herein-

  M.V.Mohanan Nair are Photocopiers in different Benches of

  the Central Administrative Tribunal and are borne in the

  same seniority list.

2. Raj Pal, at an earlier point of time, raised the issue as to

   parity for Photocopiers with Hindi Typists, Lower Division

   Clerks etc. That went in his favour. The challenge to that

   was also turned down by the Punjab and Haryana High

   Court. Thereafter, issues came regarding the application

   for ACP Scheme. That also was agitated before the Central

   Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High

   Court by Raj Pal. Ultimately, that issue also went in his

  OP(CAT) 2000/13   favour. We have perused the elaborate judgment by the

    Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387 of 2011

   (O & M).

3. Later, when Ved Prakash raised the same issue, the

   Department, essentially, conceded that the question raised

   by Ved Prakash is covered in his favour by the ratio in Raj

   Pal's case and Ved Prakash's claim was conceded and

   ordered on consent.

4. The     respondent,   a    Photocopier    in   the    Central

   Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, raised claim at

   par with what was granted to Ved Prakash and Raj Pal. The

   establishment contented that Ved Prakash was senior to Raj

   Pal, and therefore, entitled to treatment at par with Raj Pal;

   however that, the respondent herein is junior to both of

   them, and therefore, disentitled to treatment at par. The

   Tribunal pointedly addressed this issue and noticed that

   OP(CAT) 2000/13   Raj Pal was decided not on any question of seniority but

   because, grant of higher pay scale was to be on the basis of

   the incumbent having completed the requisite years of

   service under the MACP Scheme.           Thus, the Central

   Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench noticed that Raj

   Pal was not decided on any ground of seniority; nor was

   Ved Prakash given the benefit of Raj Pal's case on any

   principle of seniority. The crux of the issue as noticed by

   the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal was that grant of

   higher pay scale was purely on the basis of the incumbent

   having completed the requisite years of service under the

   MACP scheme.     The Tribunal applied that principle in the

   case of the respondent herein also and has accordingly,

   allowed the original application, also noticing that in terms

   of the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of

   India in Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, [2000 (1)

   SCC 644], the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the

   Tribunal has to be duly respected  OP(CAT) 2000/13

                                

5. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do not see that the

   Tribunal has acted contrary to the provisions of the MACP

   Scheme. We also do not see that Ved Prakash and Raj Pal

   were wrongly applied in deciding the case of the

   respondent. We, therefore, see no jurisdictional error or

   legal infirmity in the impugned decision of the Tribunal,

   warranting     interference     at   the    instance    of   the

   establishment, that too, in exercise of authority under

   Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

   In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine.

                (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

                     (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)