GURURAJA RAO G K vs REVENUE

1

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00220/2025

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

Gururaja Rao G K S/o Late G S Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 68 years,

Superintendent of Central Excise,
Customs and Service Tax (Retired),
Service Tax I Commissionerate,
TTMC Building, Domluru,
Bengaluru.
nd
R/at : No 3/8, 2 Floor
“Suraj Krupa Apartment”
th th
35 A Cross, 15 Main,
th
4 T Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru – 560 041 …Applicant

(By Advocate, Shri G B Eswarappa)

Vs.

1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block,
NEW DELHI 110 001

2. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001

S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

2

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax,
P.B.No.5400.
Central Revenue Building,
Queens Road,
BANGALORE 560 001. …Respondents

(By Advocate Shri S. Prakash Shetty)

O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs.
(i) Quash the order GCCO/11/24/PFXN/3/2023-ACCTS-
PCCO-B Z, dated 16.10.2024, Annexure ‘A9’, issued by the
Respondent 3, as not lawful and as violative of Article 14/16
of the Constitution.
(ii) Declare order F.No.A-23011/66/2021-Ad.IIA dated
10.04.2023, Annexure-A5, issued by Respondent No.1
instructing Respondent 3 to make the Judgement & Order
dated 31.07.2021, Annexure ‘A3’ , passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka in WP No.33038-39/2016 to be
personam, as violative of Article 141 of the Constitution and
as such, the same is null and void.
(iii) Direct Respondent 3 to step up the pay of the Applicants in
PB-2 + Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- vis-à-vis his
Junior with effect from the date the same is granted to his
Junior with all consequential benefits including Pension
benefits.
and,
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

3

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

(iv) grant such other relief(s) including all consequential
benefits including arrears and interest thereon as deemed
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice.

2. The issue involved herein is no longer res-integra, in view of
the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.69/2023 and connected
matters dated 20.12.2024 ( R.S.Venkataram and others vs. Union
of India and others ).

3. This Tribunal elaborately considering the case of Shri
C.R.Madhava Murthy and another vs. Union of India and others
in Writ Petition No.33038 & 33039 of 2016 (S-CAT) dated
31.07.2021, confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.2087-2088 of 2022 reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183
(DD:06.04.2022) as well as Review Petition(C) Nos.314-315/2023
(Diary No.2034/2023) in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.2087-2088
of 2022, observed thus:

“11. The only difference between the case of
Shri.C.R.Madhava Murthy and Another v. Union of India
and Others and these cases are that the Madhava Murthy ’s
case pertains to the Assured Career Progression Scheme for
the central government civilian employees issued vide O.M
No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 9.8.1999 and the present case
pertains to Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme
for the central government civilian employees issued vide
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

4

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

OM No.35034/3/2008.Estt(D) dated 19.5.2009. Also the
differences that in the C.R.Madhava Murthy ’s case, the
applicants were joined as Lower Division Clerks in 1973
and they wanted parity with a person called Shri.C.K.Satish
who was appointed as Inspector of Central Excise and
Customs as a direct recruit and another Shri.B.S.Srikant
who was also direct recruit Inspector of Central Excise and
Customs and just before their promotion to the post of
Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, the
applicants therein were seniors to these direct recruitees.
And as the direct recruitees got ACP due to which their
salaries were consequentially more than the applicants and
hence the applicants asked for parity and which although at
Tribunal level was denied, which at other levels, i.e., at the
Hon’ble High Court, and Hon’ble Supreme Court were
granted. Hence, the applicants also in this case asked for
similar benefits. They are emphasizing that their case is on
a better footing as they are in identical position to their
juniors. They are all direct recruits and are similarly placed
persons (In O.A 69/2023 and 525/2022, applicants joined as
Inspectors, except while in O.A 493/2022, applicants joined
as Lower Division Clerks).

12. We have gone through the records to satisfy
ourselves that whether the facts of the case before us have
similarity to the facts and law decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the C.R.Madhava Murthy ’s case. Another
difference between these three cases is that the respondents
had actually given the benefit and passed some orders in
some cases, which were later rescinded and in one case
benefits were also paid to the applicant, and later it was
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

5

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

recovered from the applicant in the case of Shri.MA
Sreenath in O.A No.525/2022 vide Annexure A-5. Barring
these minor differences, the facts of all these three cases do
not differ.”

4. Further referring to the provisions in MACP OM dated
19.05.2009, it has been observed thus:
“15. The respondents emphatically claim that because
of this provision in the MACP O.M dated 19.05.2009, which
has not been discussed or set aside by the Hon’ble High
Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of parity with a
person who had got the benefit of MACP by the applicants
is not justified, and the case of C.R.Madhava Murthy in
respondent’s considered opinion remains a case in
personam and it cannot be taken as a precedent to give the
benefit to others as no law point has been decided nor its
expressed provision in the O.M is set aside.

16. The respondents further pointed out that similar
provisions were there in the case of Assured Career
Progression Scheme also and they pointed out that in the
th
O.M No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 9 August, 1999 with the
subject ‘The Assured Career Progression Scheme for the
Central Government Civilian Employees’, for grant of
benefits under the ACP scheme, condition no.8 reads as
follows:
“8. The financial upgradation under the
ACP scheme shall be purely personal to the
employee and shall have no relevance to his
seniority position. As such, there shall be no
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

6

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

additional financial upgradation for the
senior employee on the ground that the
junior employee in the grade has got higher
pay scale under the ACP scheme ;”

17. The respondents further emphasized that this
condition 8 also has not been set aside by the Hon’ble High
Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, in the considered
opinion of the respondents the case of C.R.Madhava
Murthy quoted supra cannot be considered as a judgment
in rem to be applicable to other cases i.e., an exceptional
case based on the facts and circumstances of the case of the
C.R.Madhava Murthy ’s case and the order was in
personam only and not in rem. And as these provisions still
hold good and have not been set aside by the said orders of
the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court, the cases of the
applicants herein are governed by these provisions and they
do not have any case for claiming parity with their juniors
who had got the ACP benefit which is purely personal to the
employee and it shall have no relevance to the seniority
position. The applicants could not show us anything
contrary to what was asserted by the respondents in the
preceding few paragraphs.

18. The respondents have further emphasized that
C.R.Madhava Murthy ’s case is purportedly decided based
on reference to Fundamental Rule 22 of the Fundamental
Rules and Supplementary Rules, which reads the following:
……………………………………………………………….”

S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

7

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

5. Further 14 SLPs pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court also
being considered, the details of which are mentioned in Para-20 of the
said order as under:
“1. SLP (Civil) NO. 33259 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Ram Lakhan Meena

2. SLP (Civil) NO. 35001 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr.

3. SLP (Civil) NO. 34997 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Hari Narayan Koli

4. SLP (Civil) NO. 35000 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Sanjay Mathur

5. SLP (Civil) NO. 36450 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Chand Sharma

6. SLP (Civil) NO. 32992 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Girvar Singh Rathore

7. SLP (Civil) NO. 34999 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Mendiratta

8. SLP (Civil) NO. 34998 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Sumat Prakash Jain

9. SLP (Civil) NO. 35002 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Vipin Gupta

10. SLP (Civil) NO. 34996 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Girdhari Lal Mangal

11. SLP (Civil) NO. 33512 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Rukma Nand Swami

12. SLP (Civil) NO. 36448 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Giriraj Prasad Gupta

13. SLP (Civil) NO. 37709 of 2016
Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Rekha Bargava & Ors.

S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

8

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

14. SLP (Civil) NO. 35004 of 2016
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Radheshyam Sharma & Anr. ”

6. Resultantly, in Paras 23 and 24, it is held thus:
“23. In the light of the above discussions and the
decision of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment dated
31.7.2021 in Writ Petition No. 33038 & 33039 of 2016 (S-
CAT) in the case of Shri.C.R.Madhava Murthy and
Another v. Union of India and Others which was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal Nos.2087-88 of 2022, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183,
decided on 6.4.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the
said High Court’s judgment and further the said apex
court’s judgment was upheld by dismissing the Review
Petition (c) No.OD No.2034/2023 in Special Leave Petition
(C) Nos.2087-2088 of 2022 on 21.2.2023 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, all the three Original Applications are
allowed and the impugned orders are quashed .
Respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicants
on par with their respective junior from time to time and
grant the arrears of pay up to the date of retirement of the
applicants along with other consequential benefits.
Recovery, if any already made, the said amounts can be
given back to the said applicant.

24. However as emphatically mentioned by the
respondents that C.R.Madhava Murthy ’s case is in
personam only and condition 8 of either ACP or condition
10 of MACP mentioned clearly in the respective O.Ms are
not set aside, and they still remain intact, hence this order
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

9

OA.No.170/00220/2025/CAT/BANGALORE

remains subject to the decisions in the SLPs as mentioned in
paragraph 20 above. “

7. In the light of the decision taken by us as above, the applicant
herein is entitled to similar relief. Uniformity and Consistency being
the hallmark of judicial decisions, we have no reason to take a different
view in this case.

8. Resultantly, OA stands disposed of in terms of the order passed
by this Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in OA No.69/2023 and connected
matters (DD: 20.12.2024) ( R.S.Venkataram and others vs. Union
of India and others ).
No order as to costs.

sd/- sd/-

(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

sd.

S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.16
13:33:04+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI