Jag Pratap Singh vs LT GEN GAUTAM MURTY, D G OF ORDINANCE SERVICES

CP No. 18 of 2013

Open Court


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD .

th
Allahabad this, the 06 day of October, 2026.

Contempt Petition No.18 of 2013.
in
Original Application No. 1316 of 2008

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)


1. Jag Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Jageshwar Singh, R/o: 123, Ayudh Nagar,
Koyala Nagar, Kanpur.

2. Mujabir Ali, S/o Late Sardar Hussain, R/o: 30/6, Ajit Ganj Colony, Kanpur.

3. S.D. Mallick, S/o Shri N.K. Deo Mallick, R/o: 159/4, Babu Purwa Colony,
Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur.

4. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Late Shiv Murat, R/o: 252/9, Babu Purwa Colony,
Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur.

5. Laxmi Narayan, S/o Late Gokul Prasad, R/o: 22, Gopal Nagar (Supariwali
Gali), Bypass Road, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur.

….Petitioners

By Advocate : Ms. Saumya Mandhyan

Versus

1. Lt. General Gautam Murty, Director General of Ordnance Services, Army
Headquarter, New Delhi- 110011.

2. Brig. J.S. Kumar, Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur.

... .Respondents

By Advocate : Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh


O R D E R


By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Ms. Saumya Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 1 of 4

CP No. 18 of 2013

2. The instant contempt petition under Section 17 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed for non-compliance of order
dated 26.09.2012 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.1316 of
2008, whereby the following direction has been passed, which is reproduced
as below :-
“In view of the above, the order dated 20.07.2007, though, this order
has not been challenged, but we are of the view that it cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The
mater is remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the entire
matte, in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Subhash & Ors
(supra) and decide the same and grant the benefit to the applicants, if
they are similarly situated as alleged by the applicant without rejecting
his claim that they were not the applicant therein.”

3. The respondents/contemnors has filed the compliance affidavit on
behalf of all the respondents on 14.07.2026, in which it is stated that the
order of this Tribunal has been complied with and in this regard a reasoned
and speaking order dated 17.06.2026 has been passed, which is reproduced
as below :-
REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER

1. WHEREAS, the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad vide their order dated 16 Mar
2026 in Writ Petition No 15198 of 2013 (Union of India & Others Vs. Shri Jag
Pratap Singh & 04 Others) has directed that: -

"Accordingly, we modify the order of the Tribunal and direct the
competent authority to consider the claim of respondents for grant of
first ACP within a period of two months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order after giving due notice and opportunity of
hearing to respondents independently in the light of claim made by the
respondents and in the light of Notification dated 09 Aug 1999".

2. AND WHEREAS, the Respondents in the Writ Petition No 15198 of 2013
(herein after called as Respondents) were appointed in the Central Ordnance
Depot (COD), Kanpur between 1982-88.

3. AND WHEREAS, upon completion of 12 years of regular service, the
Respondents were granted the financial upgradation under the Assured
Career Progression (ACP) Scheme of August 1999 in the pay scale of Rs.
4000-6000/-.

4. AND WHEREAS, the Respondents filed a case in OA No. 1316/2008 before
the Hon'ble CAT Allahabad, claiming that their first ACP should be granted in
the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- (Pay Scale of Chargeman Grade-II) instead of
Rs. 4000-6000/-


5. AND WHEREAS, the Hon'ble CAT Allahabad allowed the O.A and passed the
following order on 26 Sep 2012: -

Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to
reconsider the entire matter in the light of the judgment passed in the
case of Subhash & Ors (supra) and decide the same and grant the
benefit to the applicants, if they are similarly situated as alleged by the
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 2 of 4

CP No. 18 of 2013

applicant without rejecting his claim that they were not the applicant
therein.

6. AND WHEREAS, the Union of India challenged the aforesaid order at Para 5
of the Hon'ble CAT Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 15198/2013 before the
Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The Hon'ble High Court vide their aforesaid
order in Para 1 dated 16 March 2026 partially allowed the Writ Petition,
modified the Tribunal's order, and directed the competent authority to
consider the claim of the respondents independently, in accordance with the
rules, after providing an opportunity of a personal hearing.

7. AND WHEREAS, In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High
Court, respondents were given a formal notice and granted an independent
opportunity of a personal hearing on to present his case and service
representations.

8. AND WHEREAS, the Respondents submitted their representation on 17 Apr
2026. In which they claimed that their first ACP should be granted in the pay
scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with a reasoning that their promotional hierarchy is of
Rs 5000-8000 and Scale of Rs 4000-6000 does not exist in their promotional
hierarchy. However, no supporting policy has been produced by the
Respondents.

9 AND WHEREAS, the representations of respondents have been scrutinized
in light of their Recruitment Rules SRO 263 of 1980 (Annexure-1), order of
restructuring of Artisan Staff vide letter No. 11(1)/2002/D(Civ.I) dt 20 May 2003
(Annexure-2), and the ACP scheme dated 09 Aug 1999 (Annexure-3).

10. AND WHEREAS, in accordance to the letter dated 20 May 2003 (Annexure-
2), the Artisan Staff Cadre structured in Defence Establishment into three-tier
hierarchy as under :-

th
Category 5 CPC Pay Scale
Skilled 3050-4590
Highly Skilled (HS-I + HS-II) 4000-6000
Master Craftsman 4500-7000



11. AND WHEREAS, the immediate next hierarchical post in the line of
promotion for a 'Skilled' artisan is 'Highly Skilled' (Rs. 4000-6000/-). The post
of Chargeman Grade-II (Rs. 5000-8000/-) is not the immediate next promotional
grade for this specific technical trade under the Army Ordnance Corps rules.

12. WHEREAS, the ACP scheme of 1999 (Annexure-3) mandates that financial
upgradation must align precisely with the existing hierarchical promotional
channel of the concerned cadre. Since the Respondents legitimate next step
was the Highly Skilled grade, he was correctly granted the scale of Rs. 4000-
st nd
6000/- as his 1 ACP and Subsequently Rs. 4500-7000/- as his 2 ACP upon
completing 24 years of service.


15. Now therefore, in view of the aforesaid statutory rules, Ministry of Defence
policy letters, and the explicit cadre hierarchy of Artisan Staff in Defence
Establishments, the claim of the respondents in Writ No. 15198/2013 for grant
of the 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- is found to be devoid of
merit and not tenable.

4. Objection to the compliance affidavit has been filed by the counsel for
the petitioners, in which it is stated that against the judgment dated
26.09.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the respondents preferred a Writ
Petition No. 15198 of 2013 before the Hon’ble High Court in which the
Hon'ble Court vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2026 modified the order
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 3 of 4

CP No. 18 of 2013

of the Tribunal and directed the competent authority to consider the claim of
the respondents for grant of first ACP within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order after giving due notice and
opportunity of hearing to applicants but no opportunity of hearing was
accorded to the applicants before passing the speaking order dated
17.06.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant admitted that the speaking
order has been passed in this regard.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents states that direction given in the
OA has been complied with. Thus, the proceedings of the contempt may be
closed and notices issued to the respondents may also be discharged.

6. Since the speaking order dated 17.06.2026 has been passed by the
respondents, the compliance has been made. Accordingly, the contempt
proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

7. It is made clear that if the petitioners are still aggrieved with the
speaking order passed by the respondents, they have liberty to challenge the
same by way of filing the fresh OA.

8. All associated MAs also stand disposed of.

(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)


RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 4 of 4