Facts
The applicant, a retired Senior Goods Guard who superannuated on 30.06.2024 [para. 3], sought directions for the grant of the first Assured Career Progression (ACP) w.e.f. 09.08.1999, the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) w.e.f. 01.09.2016, and a promotional increment w.e.f. 18.03.2018.
Source reference: para. 2, 3He was initially appointed as a Trackman in 1986, regularized in 1996, and subsequently moved through various roles including Pointsman, Cabin Master, and Goods Guard.
Source reference: para. 3-4The respondents contended that the applicant had already received three financial upgrades/promotions (Switchman in 2002, MACP in 2008, and Goods Guard/Senior Goods Guard in 2018/2021).
Source reference: para. 9Additionally, the department recovered ₹5,00,000 from the applicant’s gratuity due to alleged miscalculation of ACP benefits, an action challenged in a separate pending Original Application (OA No. 1228 of 2024).
Source reference: para. 3, 5The applicant submitted a representation regarding these grievances on 18.09.2024, which remained pending.
Source reference: para. 5-6Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the specific financial upgradations under the ACP/MACP schemes and promotional increments as claimed.
Source reference: para. 22. Whether the respondent authority is required to dispose of the applicant's pending representation regarding his pay fixation and financial upgradation.
Source reference: para. 6Law Applied
The court considered the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme as governed by Railway Board Establishment (RBE) orders.
Source reference: para. 4Specifically, it referenced RBE No. 101/2009 regarding the three-upgrade limit.
Source reference: para. 4RBE No. 31/2023, which stipulates that "regular service" for MACP purposes commences from the date of regular appointment, excluding 50% of temporary status casual service.
Source reference: para. 4The court also noted DoP&T OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) regarding the exclusion of ad-hoc or contract service from MACP calculations.
Source reference: para. 4Reasoning
The applicant argued that his transition from Trackman to Pointsman involved a shift to a lower pay scale and should not be treated as a promotion or financial upgradation.
Source reference: para. 3Conversely, the respondents asserted that the applicant's service for MACP should be counted only from his regularization date (09.08.1996) per RBE 31/2023, and that he had exhausted his entitlement by receiving three promotions/upgrades throughout his career.
Source reference: para. 4, 9The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s grievance was already articulated in a pending representation dated 18.09.2024.
Source reference: para. 5Without adjudicating on the merits of the conflicting claims or the issue of limitation, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course of action was to compel the competent authority to decide the existing representation in light of the relevant schemes.
Source reference: para. 6-7Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application without entering into the merits or the question of delay.
It directed Respondent No. 2 (Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway) to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 18.09.2024 by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the ACP/MACP schemes within four months of receiving the certified order.
Source reference: para. 6No order was made as to costs.
Source reference: para. 8Original Court PDF
HEERAMANI YADAVvsM/O RAILWAYS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in