S MANJULA vs M/O Skill Development and Entrepreneurship

1 OA 310/01150/2019

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA 310/01150/2019
th

Dated Wednesday, the 7 day of October, Two Thousand and Twenty Six

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON’BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, Member (A)

Smt. S. Manjula, legal heir of
K. Sankar Rao,
Vocational Instructor (Retd.),
No.1137, 75th Street,
12th Sector,
West KK Nagar,
Chennai 600078. … Applicant

By Advocate M/s. S. Retnaswamy

Vs

1. The Director General,
Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
II Floor, Annexe Building,
Shivaji Stadium,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110 001.

2. The Director,
Advanced Training Institute,
Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
Directorate General of Employment & Training,
CTI Campus, Guindy,
Chennai 600032. …Respondents

By Advocate Mr. V. Yurendrakumar

2 OA 310/01150/2019


ORAL ORDER


(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (J))


In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"a) to set aside the order passed by the second respondent in
No.ATI/CH/A-21020/01/2018/119 dated 18.05.2018 and the
order passed by the first respondent in DGT A-
11019/1/2017-TA-II dated 31.10.2018 and direct
Respondents to grant 2nd ACP to the applicant in the scale
of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500/- (pre-revised) with effect
from 10.10.2008 along with all the consequential benefits.

b) Cost of this application.
c) And pass such further order or orders as this Tribunal
deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and
thus render justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant entered into service as Vocational Instructor on 10.10.1983
and retired on superannuation on 31.08.2010. The applicant was granted first
ACP in the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/- with effect from 09.08.1999 on
completion of 12 years of service and was eligible for grant of 2nd ACP in the
scale of pay of Rs. 8000-275-13500/- with effect from 10.10.2008 (24 years plus
1 year). However, instead of granting 2nd ACP, the applicant was granted
MACP in place of ACP with effect from 01.09.2008. The applicant completed
the required 25 years of service on 10.10.2008 and became eligible for grant of
2nd ACP. MACP was introduced by Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009. On

3 OA 310/01150/2019
nd
the date the applicant became eligible for grant of 2 ACP i.e. 10.10.2008, the
MACP Scheme had not come into existence. Hence the applicant is eligible for
nd
grant of 2 ACP in the scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500/- with effect from
10.10.2008. It is submitted that even though the MACP Scheme was introduced
vide O.M. dated 19.05.2009, the same came into effect with effect from
01.09.2008. Prior to the introduction of MACP Scheme in O.M. dated
19.05.2009, the applicant has completed the required number of years of service
nd
(on 10.10.2008) for grant of 2 ACP. The said view has been taken by the
Madras Bench of this Tribunal and also by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. In
nd
view of the above, the applicant is entitled for 2 ACP in the scale of pay of
Rs.8000-275-13500/- with effect from 10.10.2008 with all consequential
benefits. The applicant had given representations dated 06.09.2017 and
10.01.2018 seeking second ACP in the scale of pay of Rs. 8000-275-13500/-
with effect from 10.10.2008. Aggrieved, the applicant filed O.A. No. 436 of
2018, which was disposed of by this Tribunal in its order dated 26.03.2018 with
a direction to dispose of the applicant's representation. The respondents have
rejected the representations of the applicant in their order dated 18.05.2018 and
31.10.2018. Hence the applicant has filed this OA seeking the above relief.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the
respondent stated that the issue is no more res integra and relied upon the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs S.
Ranjit Samuel, in Civil Appeal No.1625-1627/2022, Order dated 24.03.2022.

4 OA 310/01150/2019

4. When the same was put forth before the learned counsel for the applicant,
he relied on the grounds raised and could not controvert the same.

5. We have heard both the parties, and perused the pleadings and materials
on record.

6. The issue which is raised in the present OA is “whether the employees,
who had completed 24 years of regular service between 1st September, 2008 and
19th May, 2009 would be considered under the ACP Scheme or under the
MACP Scheme”.

7. We find the issue is no more res integra and considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority in
Civil Appeal No. 1880 of 2022, Order dated 08.03.2022 and also in the case of
Union of India Vs S. Ranjit Samuel, in Civil Appeal No.1625-1627/2022, Order
dated 24.03.2022, and the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
“14. In the present case, this Court is considering the question, as
to whether the employees, who had completed 24 years of regular
service between 1st September, 2008 and 19th May, 2009 would
be considered under the ACP Scheme or under the MACP
Scheme. This was also a question, which directly fell for
consideration and decided by the three judge Bench of this Court
in the case of Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority
(supra).

15. In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
It is, therefore, ordered that:

5 OA 310/01150/2019


(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras dated 14th February, 2017, passed in Writ Petition Nos.
33946, 34602 and 27798 of 2014 and the orders of the Tribunal
dated 6th November, 2013, passed in O.A. No. 818 of 2011 and
th
26 February, 2014, passed in O.A. Nos. 1170 of 2012 and 437 of
2013 are quashed and set aside;
(iii) The Original Applications filed by the respondents
employees herein are dismissed.
(iv) It is held and declared that the cases of the respondents’
employees/applicants before the Tribunal would be governed by
the MACP Scheme.
(v) In case, the appellants have not finalized the cases of any of
the respondent employees for their entitlement under the MACP
Scheme, the same shall be considered in accordance with the
MACP Scheme and the benefits be given to them within a period
of three months from the date of this order.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order
as to costs.


8. In the above circumstance and based the judgement cited supra we don’t
find any interference is required in the impugned order. In the result the OA is
dismissed. No order as to costs.

(M.L. Srivastava) (M. Swaminathan)
Member (A) Member (J)
07.10.2026

Digitally signed by
P ARUNA
SOWBHAGYA
Date: 2026.10.23
12:58:46 +05'30'
P ARUNA SOWBHAGYA
COURT MASTER
CAT,MADRAS BENCH