A subsequent MACP claim is barred by res judicata after prior adjudication of eligibility.

The applicants, railway employees who had initially joined as Train Clerks and later entered Assistant Yard Master/Assistant Station Master posts through GDCE, sought second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.

They argued that their GDCE appointments should be treated as direct recruitment under Railway Board letter RBE No. 100/2012, so their earlier service should not count against MACP eligibility; they also alleged that comparable employees had received higher grade pay.

The respondents opposed the claim, contending that the applicants had already received three promotions and that an earlier application seeking MACP-related relief had been dismissed.

The Tribunal found that O.A. No. 796/2011 had already considered the applicants’ promotion history and MACP eligibility and had dismissed the claim.

Whether the applicants’ claim for second and third MACP financial upgradations was barred by res judicata because their eligibility had been adjudicated in O.A. No. 796/2011.

Whether the applicants could reopen the MACP issue by relying on additional grounds, including RBE No. 100/2012 and alleged differential treatment of comparable employees.

The Tribunal applied the principle of res judicata, grounded in the need for finality in litigation and to prevent the same parties from repeatedly litigating an issue already decided by a competent forum.

It also relied on the earlier Tribunal order, which held that the applicants had already received three promotions and were consequently not eligible for further MACP financial upgradation.

Although the applicants invoked Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the basis for their application and relied on Railway Board letter RBE No. 100/2012, the Tribunal did not determine the substantive effect of that letter on MACP eligibility.

The Tribunal compared the present claim with O.A. No. 796/2011 and found that the earlier proceeding had directly considered the applicants’ service progression and eligibility for MACP, holding that they had already availed three promotions.

The applicants’ additional reliance on the GDCE recruitment rules, pay-scale merger, and alleged benefits to other employees did not, in the Tribunal’s view, justify reopening the issue; any challenge to the earlier decision should have been pursued before the competent forum rather than through fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal therefore treated the prior adjudication as barring the present claim, without independently resolving the applicants’ substantive arguments under RBE No. 100/2012.

Paragraph 19 directs the applicants to deposit costs of ₹5,000 with the CAT Bar Association, Allahabad, within two months, with recovery as arrears of land revenue in default; however, paragraph 22 states, “No order as to costs,” creating an inconsistency in the order on costs.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.