28 Retired Railway Guards’ MACP Contempt Case Closed After Tribunal Finds Admissible Benefits And Retirement Dues Paid

The applicants, retired North Central Railway employees, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 15 November 2018, which directed the respondents to consider eligible applicants for MACP benefits and provided that MACP benefits already granted would not be recovered

The respondents filed compliance affidavits stating that admissible MACP benefits, revised pay fixation, arrears and consequential retirement benefits had been paid, supported by revised PPOs and pay-fixation records

The applicants disputed the calculations and asserted that pay fixation, MACP dates, increments and consequential retirement benefits remained incorrect

The judgment’s heading identifies the contempt petition as arising in O.A. No. 1611/2013, while paragraph 2 refers to the order as having been passed in O.A. No. 331/2015

Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was invoked as the basis for the contempt petition

The underlying order directed consideration of MACP benefits for eligible applicants in light of the Allahabad High Court’s judgment dated 19 July 2013 in Writ-A No. 18244/2013, and stated that MACP benefits already allowed were not to be recovered, consistently with the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 27 March 2018 in Union of India v. Mukti Singha, Civil Appeal No. 3321 of 2018

In the present contempt proceedings, the Tribunal considered whether the directions had been complied with and whether any wilful disobedience remained; it did not reopen the merits of the applicants’ pay-fixation claims

The Tribunal reviewed the compliance affidavits, supplementary affidavits and rebuttal materials.

It found that the respondents had provided revised pay fixation and PPOs, and had stated that gratuity, revised pension, arrears and other admissible retirement dues had been paid

Although the applicants alleged errors in the calculations and sought further correction, the Tribunal concluded on the record before it that the benefits admissible under the 2018 order had been extended and that there had been no wilful disobedience

It closed the contempt petition, consigned it to the record and discharged the notices issued to the respondents; any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of