Facts
The applicant was initially appointed as a laborer in 1981, subsequently promoted to Offset Machine Attendant in 1995, and then to Dark Room Assistant (DRA) in 2002.
Source reference: p. 2Upon completing 30 years of service, he was granted the 3rd MACP benefit with a Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 2800 effective from 26.11.2011.
Source reference: p. 2The applicant sought retrospective grant of GP Rs. 2800 from 01.01.2006 and GP Rs. 4200 from 26.11.2011, claiming he should be classified as a "Highly Skilled Worker" under Ministry OMs dated 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012.
Source reference: p. 3He further sought parity with colleagues Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. R.P.S. Nimotra, who received higher grade pays.
Source reference: p. 3The respondents initially rejected his claim via an order dated 08.04.2015, asserting he was not similarly placed and that his seniority (position 104 out of 122) excluded him from the 50% quota for Highly Skilled Grade-I.
Source reference: p. 3, 6Issues
1. Whether the applicant, holding the post of Dark Room Assistant (DRA), is entitled to be classified under the "Highly Skilled" category as per the OMs dated 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012.
Source reference: p. 6-72. Whether the applicant is entitled to parity in Grade Pay (Rs. 4200) with Sh. R.P.S. Nimotra under the MACP scheme.
Source reference: p. 4, 7Law Applied
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Source reference: p. 2Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme principles regarding financial upgradation.
Source reference: p. 2, 5Directorate of Printing OMs dated 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012, which restructured the Highly Skilled cadre into Grade-I (GP Rs. 2800) and Grade-II (GP Rs. 2400) in a 50:50 ratio based on inter-se seniority.
Source reference: p. 3, 6Recruitment Rules of 2003 and a clarification dated 22.09.2025 regarding the classification of specific technical posts as Highly Skilled.
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the respondents' defense: while they initially claimed DRAs were not "Highly Skilled," their additional affidavit and the OM dated 22.09.2025 suggested that roles like Offset Machine Assistant (which the applicant previously held) were indeed classified as Highly Skilled.
Source reference: p. 7The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to clearly establish whether the post of DRA was excluded from the benefits of the 2012 OMs or if the applicant’s seniority had been properly evaluated at each relevant interval.
Source reference: p. 8The Tribunal observed that if the applicant was considered a Highly Skilled Grade-II worker (GP Rs. 2400), the grant of GP Rs. 2800 under the 3rd MACP required a more granular verification of his eligibility for Highly Skilled Grade-I based on the 50% seniority quota at various points in time.
Source reference: p. 6, 8Holding
The Tribunal concluded that the matter required a fresh review due to the inconsistent stands taken by the respondents.
It directed the respondents to pass a detailed speaking order within eight weeks, re-evaluating the applicant’s entitlement under the OMs dated 07.02.2012, 17.05.2012, and the 2025 clarification based on his seniority at the relevant times.
Source reference: p. 8-9If found eligible, the applicant is to receive consequential benefits and back wages, though arrears are restricted to a period starting three years prior to the filing of the OA, without interest; the OA was disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Upender ThakurvsM/o Urban Development
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in