K K Sahu vs M/o Railways

1
((

(Reserved on 08.09.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR

(Through video conferencing)




th
this the 13 day of October , 2026



HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Original Application No. 628 of 2015

1. K.K. Sahu, Sr. Goods Guard, S/o Shri Alikh Chandra Sahu, Date
of birth – 01.07.1964, R/o Qr. No. 6-E, Street No. 1, Sector-8,
Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G).
2. Sam Mathew, S/o Shri M.A. Mathew, Date of birth – 16.01.1969,
R/o 12/12, Priydarshini Parisar, East Supela, Bhilai, District –
Durg (C.G).
3. Mohd. Sharif, S/o Late Mohd. Jumerati, Date of birth –
05.06.1958, R/o Qr. No. 5-D, Street No. 1 A, Sector – 8, Bhilai,
District – Durg (C.G). -Applicants

Advocate for the applicant: Shri A.V. Shridhar.

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, South East Central
Railways, Bilaspur- 495004 (C.G).

2. Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railways, Headquarter,
Bilaspur- 495004 (C.G).

3. Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railways, Raipur
Division, Raipur (C.G).

4. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railways,
Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G). ………….Respondents

Advocate for the respondents: Shri D.S. Baghel (absent)
Page 1 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

2
O R D E R
By Mallika Arya.-
The present original application has been directed against the
order dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure A-1) whereby the claim of the
applicants for grant of financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme in GP
Rs. 4600/- has not been acceded to.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants were initially
recruited in Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- on different dates. After rendering
12 years they were granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- attached to the post
of Senior Goods Guard by virtue of ACP. Later on, they were offered
regular promotion to the post of Senior Goods Guard as well as
Passenger Guard which they refused as the post of Senior Goods Guard
and Passenger Guard carry the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- which they
were already being paid. However, on completion of 20 years service in
G.P. Rs. 4200/-, the applicants preferred representation seeking
financial up-gradation in GP Rs. 4600/- under MACP Scheme which has
been denied in terms of para 25 of Estt. Rule No. 138/2009.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
respondents have wrongly interpreted the provisions contained in para
25 of Rule No 138/2009 (Annexure A-3) as the placement / movement
from the post of Senior Goods Gaud to the post of Passenger Guard is
not a promotion but a lateral induction as both posts are carrying same
Page 2 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

3
Grade Pay and does not involve any financial up-gradation. The learned
counsel for the applicant has also contended that the issue involved in
the present OA is no more res integra in view of the several decisions of
this Tribunal. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
applicants has placed reliance on the order dated 15.10.2024 passed
by this Tribunal in OA No. 307/2017 – Sewak Bardna Minz Vs. UOI &
Ors . Thus, the learned counsel for the applicants has contended that
the action of the respondents in not granting financial up-gradation in
GP Rs. 4600/- is arbitrary and unjust and prayed to grant the benefit to
the applicants.
4. The respondents have filed their reply stating therein that there are
four ladders available for the promotion in Guard category. The initial
appointment in Goods Guard in GP Rs. 2800/-. The next promotion is
Senior Goods Gaur in GP Rs. 4200/-, thereafter to the post of Senior
Passenger Guard in GP Rs. 4200/-. The respondents’ counsel has stated
that though there is no change in Grade Pay but it has been considered
as promotion and one increment is being extended as promotional
benefit. The last promotion in Guard category is Mail/Express Guard
which also carries G.P. Rs. 4200/- and one increment is also being
extended as promotional benefit by adding Rs. 500/- per month. The
learned counsel for the respondents have stated that despite the
promotional posts were offered to the applicants, they refused to accept
the same. Therefore, as per para 25 of the Estt. Rule 138/2009, they are
Page 3 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

4
not entitled for financial up-gradation. The learned counsel for the
respondents has also submitted that as there is no Grade Pay of Rs.
4600/- available in Guard category, they are not entitled for GP Rs.
4600/-.
5. When the matter was called, the respondents’ counsel did not
appear as he was on adjustment. Since the matter is pending since 2015,
therefore, as per rule 16(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, we decided to hear
Shri A.V. Shridahar, learned counsel for the applicants and time was
granted to both the learned counsel for parties to file their written
submission within 15 days. Though the written submissions have been
filed by the applicant’s counsel, the respondents’ counsel has not filed
the same within stipulated period.
6. The issue to be decided in the present OA is whether the
applicants are entitled for financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme in
Grade Pay Rs. 4600?
7. The Railway Board has issued a notification dated 11.09.2008
circulated under RBE No.108/2008 regarding implementation of VI
Central Pay Commission recommendations i.e. Railway Services [Revised
Pay] Rules, 2008. Annexure B to the said notification provides for
Revised Pay Band & Grade Pay of certain specified categories of Staff. As
per the said Annexure Mail Guards in scale of 5500-9000 PB-2, Senior
Passenger Guards in the Scale of 5500-9000 PB-2 and the Passenger
Page 4 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

5
Guards in the Scale of 5000-8000 PB-2 have been merged in the Grade
Pay of Rs. 4200/- and the Goods Guards have been placed in the Grade
Pay of Rs. 4200/-. The applicants, who were initially recruited in Grade
Pay Rs. 2800/- were granted the benefit of financial up-gradation in GP
Rs. 4200/-. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Senior Goods
Guard and Senior Passenger Guard. As per the respondents’ counsel,
since, there is no Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in Guard category, they were
granted Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- with one increment as promotional
benefit. The applicants refused the offer of regular promotion. Therefore,
on completion of 20 years service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, they are
claiming the financial up-gradation as per MACP Scheme in Grade Pay
Rs. 4600/-. It is noted that the applicants have been denied the benefit
of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- mainly on the ground of refusal of offer of
promotion and also on the ground that the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- is
not available to the Guard category.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
applicants has cited the order of this Tribunal passed in OA No.
307/2017 (Supra) . We have gone through the said order and find that
the similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 13031/2013- Union of India Vs. K.
Bhaskaran & ors. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are
reproduced below: -
Page 5 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

6
“5. The respondent, contesting employee, has filed the return and
has categorically contended that the stand taken by the petitioners in
the present writ petitions is not acceptable in view of the fact that the
harmonious interpretation of the Clause 5 & 8 of the MACPS was done
by the CAT. Similar issue was considered by the CAT at Allahabad,
which order has been affirmed by the Division Bench of Allahabad
High Court. Apart from the aforesaid, it is the contention that there
was no upgradation in the pay 6 scale, there was only a change in
the basic pay scale because of the release of the increments, which
cannot be treated as a upgradation of the pay scale. The fact that the
different pay scales were merged, which were made applicable for
different post, will not amount to the financial upgradation of the
employees like respondent and, thus, since there was a complete
stagnation on one post and in one cadre for a long period, the
employees like respondent were entitled to grant of benefit of MACPS
which order was rightly issued in their respect. Such an order was not
to be recalled nor any recovery was to be made from the persons like
respondent and in view of the aforesaid, the action taken by the
petitioners was rightly interfered with by the Tribunal which need no
interference by this Court in the writ proceedings. Thus, it is submitted
that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

7: For the purpose of convenience, we are required to examine the
MACPS. Rightly the provisions of paras 5 and 8 of MACPS have been
interpreted and noted down by the Tribunal. However, for the
purposes of convenience, the same are reproduced hereunder :-

“5. Promotions earned/upgradations granted under the ACP
Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same
grade pay due to merger of pay scales/ upgradations of posts
recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for
the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS.

The pre-revised hierarchy (in ascending order) in a
particular organization was as under :-
Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 & Rs.6500- 10500.

(a) A Government servant who was recruited in the
hierarchy in the pre-revised pay scale Rs. 5000-8000 and who
did not get a promotion even after 25 years of service prior to
1.1.2006, in his case as on 1.1.2006 he would have got two
financial upgradations under ACP to the next grades in the
hierarchy of his organization, i.e., to the pre- revised scales of
Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500.

Page 6 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

7
(b) Another Government servant recruited in the same
hierarchy in the pre-revised scale of Rs.5000-8000 has also
completed about 25 years of service, but he got two promotions
to the next higher grades of Rs.5500-9000 & Rs.6500-10500
during this period.

In the case of both (a) and (b) above, the promotions/
financial upgradations granted under ACP to the pre-revised
scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 prior to 1.1.2006
will be ignored on account of merger of the pre- revised scales of
Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500
recommended by the Sixth CPC. As per CCS (RP) Rules, both of
them will be granted grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-
2. After the implementation of MACPS, two financial
upgradations will be granted both in the case of (a) and (b)
above to the next higher grade pays of Rs.4600 and Rs.4800 in
the pay band PB-2.

8. Promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in
the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be
counted for the purpose of MACPS.

8.1 Consequent upon the implementation of Sixth CPC's
recommendations, grade pay of Rs.5400 is now in two pay
bands viz., PB-2 and PB-3. The grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2
and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays
for the purpose of grant of upgradations under MACP Scheme.”

8: The Tribunal in its order has quoted the aforesaid provision,
has taken note of the fact that the same is interpreted by Ernakulam
Bench of the CAT in Kerala and has held that in the given
circumstances, the persons like respondent (applicant before the
Tribunal) would be entitled to the benefit of MACPS. The Ernakulam
Bench of CAT has considered these aspects in order dated 22.2.2012
passed in Original Application No.484/2011 and other analogous
Original Applications in paragraph 14 onwards, which for the purpose
of convenience are reproduced hereunder :-

“14. At the very outset, it is to be made clear that the above two
provisions may appear to be conflicting with each other
whereas, it is not so. Even if these are conflicting, what is
expected is to read them harmoniously without making any of
them otiose or unworkable. This is the settled law of
interpretation, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhakra
Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar VII (2010) 8 SCC
701, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under :-
Page 7 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

8

32. It has been stated by Lord Dunedin in Murrav V.
IRC AC that :

“...It is our duty to make what we can of statutes,
knowing that they are meant to be operative and not
inept, and nothing short of impossibility should in my
judgment allow a Judge to declare a statute unworkable.”
15. Continuing further, the Apex Court also has
observed that while interpreting the provisions of any
law, such interpretation should be to secure the object.
Thus, observed the Apex Court –

The principle was reiterated by him in a later
judgment in Whitnev V. IRC, AC at where he observed :

“A statute is designed to be workable and the
interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure that
object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes
that end unattainable.”

16. Consolidating the above, the Apex Court then
observed –

“33. The aforesaid observations make it abundantly
clear that the courts will, therefore, reject the construction
which is likely to defeat the plain intention of the
legislature even though there may be some inexactitude
in the language used. If the choice is between two
interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to
achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be
avoided. In view of this, to attain the fruitful results of the
1990 Order we have to give it a meaningful and proper
construction which would achieve the object for which it
was passed, rather than to give a narrower construction
which may defeat the very purpose of passing the said
order.”

17. Now, the purpose of financial upgradation as
contained in the original ACP Scheme or for that matter in
the modified ACP Scheme is to afford additional financial
benefits when no promotions are possible. Again, yet
another law of service jurisprudence in matter of pay, as
held by the Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh
Grewal Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2009) 3 SCC
Page 8 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

9
94 is “a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his
junior.”
18. It is with the above broad principles of
interpretation that the two provisions i.e. para 5 and para
8 of the scheme are to be interpreted. Para 5 talks of
promotions granted in the past to some posts the pay
scales of which have since been merged and the said
para requires that such promotions granted should be
ignored for the purpose of MACP. Para 8, on the other
hand states that if there be two posts carrying the same
grade pay and one is the promotional post of the other,
and if promotion to such post takes place, the same shall
be taken into account for the purpose of MACP. There
may be a seeming conflict between the two provisions,
whereas, it is not so. The difference in the two is that
para 5 applies to a situation where there is merger of two
or more pay scales, while such a merger is not there in
respect of the pay scales of promotional post and the
feeder posts in respect of para 8. The two provisions are
in fact functioning in two different planes and are
compatible.

19. The underlying reason in such provisions (a) to
ignore the promotions granted when the two or more pay
scales have been merged vide para 5 of the Scheme (b)
but to take into account the promotions even if grade pay
is the same in respect of two promotions vide para 8 is
not far from comprehension.

20. Where there is a merger of pay scales in future
cases, promotion from the feeder grade would be only in
the merged pay scale which would constitute only one
promotion making eligible the persons for one or two
MACPS thereafter, whereas, for the past cases, unless
the promotions are ignored, the same would account for
two or more promotions which would disentitle them from
the benefit of MACP. In so far as the other case referred to
in para 8 of the scheme, there being no merger of pay
scales, be it the past promotion or future promotion,
entitlement or otherwise to MACP would be identical. If
the promotions are to be accounted for in respect of
merged posts whose pay scales have been merged into a
single one then, such a situation would result in a
calamitous disparity in the pay of the seniors and juniors
(juniors getting more pay than the seniors). And as held
Page 9 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

10
in the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal(supra) such a
situation cannot be allowed to permeate.

21. The respondents were right when they had earlier
granted MACP to the applicants ignoring the promotions
granted earlier as such promotions fell under the
provisions of para 5 of the scheme. It is only due to the
erroneous clarification issued by the CPO that the
respondents have taken action for recovery of alleged
excess payment. We render our finding here that the
applicants are all entitled to the MACP already awarded
and withdrawal of the same and effecting recovery on
account of the withdrawal are thoroughly illegal and
unjust.”

9 : Though the said order was called in question in a writ petition
before the Kerala High Court and an interim stay has been granted,
yet the fact remains that the very same analogy was made applicable
by the CAT Allahabad Bench in Original Application No.1241/2011.
The said order of Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal was called in
question before the Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad in WP-
A. No.18244/2013 by the Railways, which petition has been
dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2013 as has been placed on record
by the respondent along with his return as Annx.R/1. The Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court has considered these aspects as also
the question whether the movement of a senior Goods Guards to the
post of Passenger Guard is a promotion or not. Dealing with the
aforesaid question, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has
recorded the reasons which reads thus :-

“Therefore, the sole question to be decided in this writ petition is
as to whether the movement of a Senior Goods Guard to the
post of Passenger Goods Guard is a promotion or not. If it is not
a promotion, the private respondents will be entitled to the
benefits of MACPS.

The above question appears to have been set at rest by
judicial pronouncement. A copy of the judgment and order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench in Original Application No.1268 of 2004 disposed of on
1st February, 2006 (Mithilesh Kumar and others Vs. Union of
India and others) was produced before the Court for perusal. In
the said judgment, the Tribunal specifically held that movement
of Senior Goods Guard whose pay scale is 5000-8000 when
posted as Passenger Guards will be only lateral induction and
not exactly a promotion. While holding thus, two judgments of
Page 10 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

11
Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal had been relied upon by
Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. There
is no dispute that in a similar matter filed by A. Haldhar and 37
others, the Tribunal passed a similar order and the same was
challenged before this Court by the Railways in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.51293 of 2006. The writ petition was dismissed on
15.9.2006 and the Railways preferred an appeal before the
Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.26787 of
2008. The said Special Leave Appeal was also rejected on
7.12.2011. Therefore, the law has been settled to the effect that
movement of a senior Goods Guard to the post of Passenger
Guard is not a promotion and is a lateral induction.

Undisputedly, the Senior Goods Guards and Passenger
Guards were in the same scale of pay i.e. 5000-8000. Vide
Board's Letter dated 11.9.2008, two categories of Passenger
Guard and Senior Passenger Guard (5500-9000) have been
merged and allotted Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- in Pay Band-II
(RBE-108/2008). Whereas, earlier the post of Senior Passenger
Guard was a promotional post for Passenger Guards. So far as
the private respondents are concerned, undisputedly, they were
initially recruited as Guard and received one financial
upgradation i.e. from 2800 to 4200 (earlier grade pay assigned
for both Senior Goods Guard/Passenger Guard) when they
moved from the entry level of Goods Guard to the next higher
post of either Senior Goods Guard or Passenger Guard. There
was no further promotion so far as the private respondents are
concerned. Since it has already been held by judicial
pronouncement that the post of Senior Goods Guard and
Passenger Guard have the same grade of pay and movement of
a Senior Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Guard, is only a
lateral induction and not a promotion, all the private
respondents would be taken to have got only one financial
upgradation and as per MACPS, they were entitled to two more
financial upgradations. This is exactly what has been held by
the Ernaculum Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in
a batch of original applications, which was relied upon by the
Tribunal in the impugned judgment.

For the reasons stated above, we find no justification to
interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.”

10 : We have no hesitation in accepting the aforesaid reasonings of
the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, for the simple reason that
a categorical statement should have been made in that respect by the
Page 11 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

12
petitioners herein that in fact persons like respondent were granted
the benefit of promotion in terms of the Regulations or Rules made by
the petitioners in due course of time including the financial benefits
and upgradation. Secondly, merely because of the merger of the pay
scales any movement of Senior Goods Guard to the post of Passenger
Guard was not to be treated as a promotion unless otherwise provided
under the Service Rules. If it was a promotion, in what manner such
consideration was done and whether that was granted to the persons
like respondent in due course of employment in terms of those
Regulations or not, was required to be proved by the petitioners.
Nothing in that respect has been produced before the Tribunal. A bald
statement that the MACPS would not be applicable in case of persons
like respondent is not enough since it is required to be demonstrated
by the petitioners themselves that the said MACPS is made for a
specific purpose and for specific class of employees who have
remained in stagnation in the matter of promotion for a long time.
Broadly interpreting the provisions of paragraph 5 and 8 of the
aforesaid MACPS, we are of the considered opinion that no error of
law was committed by the Tribunal in making the said Scheme
applicable for the persons like respondent. However, since certain
facts were not clarified by the petitioners before the Tribunal, that
opportunity to conduct an enquiry in that respect and to examine the
cases of each and every individual separately was granted by the
Tribunal by the impugned order. We are of the considered opinion that
even such an opportunity was not required to be granted to the
petitioners in view of the fact that though petitioners being employer
were having all the information in respect of so-called promotion of
respondent, the said information was not produced before the
Tribunal in adequate manner. However, we are not inclined to
interfere in the order of the Tribunal only and are not willing to disturb
the said liberty granted by the Tribunal for the reason the said aspect
is not called in question by the respondent before us.”

9. The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P-A
No.18244/2013 has considered these aspects as also the question
whether the movement of a senior Goods Guards to the post of Passenger
Guard is a promotion or not. Allahabad High Court has recorded the
reasons and held that movement of a Senior Goods Guard to the post of
Passenger Guard is not a promotion and is a lateral induction.
Page 12 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY

13
10. Further, we also take note of the contention of the respondents
that the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- is not available to the Guards category.
In this regard, we have gone through a letter dated 04.09.2014 issued by
the Railway Board (Annexure A-6). Para (c) of the said letter is
reproduced below: -
“(c). Accordingly, the employees joining a post in Grade Pay Rs.
2800, on direct recruitment basis may be considered for grant of
financial upgradation in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, Rs. 4600 and Rs.
4800 of PB-2 provided that no two successive grades i.e. feeder and
promotion are in same Grade Pay.”
In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the
respondents that the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- is not available to the
Guards category.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that this case is squarely covered by the ratio decided by Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra).
Consequently, the Original Application No. 628 of 2015 is allowed and the
order dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure A-1) is set aside. The respondents are
directed to grant benefit of up-gradation in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to the
applicant in accordance with rules within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs

(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand…
Page 13 of 13
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:01:16+05'30'
DUBEY