Facts
The fifteen applicants, retired Railway Train Guards from the North Central Railway, sought the execution of the Tribunal's order dated September 11, 2018.
Source reference: p. 1-2That order directed the respondents to consider the applicants for financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in light of the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Writ A No. 18244/2013.
Source reference: p. 2, para 2Despite a subsequent direction on December 13, 2024, to file a compliance affidavit based on the High Court's interpretation rather than internal Railway Board letters, the respondents filed a fresh affidavit on February 21, 2025, containing an incomplete information chart.
Source reference: p. 3-4, para 7-8The respondents contended that the applicants were ineligible for further benefits as they had already received three promotions.
Source reference: p. 3, para 5Conversely, the applicants argued for the attachment of the competent authority’s assets due to persistent non-compliance with the original order.
Source reference: p. 2, para 4Issues
1. Whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal’s direction to decide the applicants' MACP benefits specifically in terms of the judgment in Writ A No. 18244/2013.
Source reference: p. 3, para 72. Whether the respondents are justified in shifting the burden of producing Pension Payment Order (PPO) copies onto the applicants for the implementation of the judgment.
Source reference: p. 4, para 8Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principles of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme as interpreted by the Allahabad High Court in Writ A No. 18244/2013.
Source reference: p. 2It also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang (1972), which establishes that while an executing court cannot go behind a decree, it is duty-bound to construe the decree to give it true effect.
Source reference: p. 3, para 5Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on the principle that the custodial department is responsible for producing service records and PPO details necessary for executing judicial orders.
Source reference: p. 4, para 8Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ reliance on internal Railway Board letters to deny benefits was a deviation from the specific judicial mandate to follow the High Court’s interpretation in Writ A No. 18244/2013.
Source reference: p. 3, para 7The Tribunal found the respondents' fresh compliance affidavit unsatisfactory because the implementation chart was incomplete, specifically for applicants at Serial Nos. 14 to 18.
Source reference: p. 4, para 8The Bench rejected the respondents' claim that they required PPO copies from the applicants, noting that such documents are within the respondents' own custody.
Source reference: p. 4, para 8The court reasoned that until complete details for all applicants are placed on record, the execution application cannot be finalized or dismissed based on the respondents' assertion of "three promotions".
Source reference: p. 4, para 8Holding
The Tribunal held that the respondents had failed to provide complete information necessary for the execution of the order.
It directed the Registry to list the matter on May 11, 2026, and ordered the competent authority among the respondents to bring on record the complete service and PPO information for applicants 14 to 18 by that date.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 9No final order on attachment or dismissal was passed, pending the submission of the required data.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 9Original Court PDF
DEEPAK CHATRIvsGeneral Manager N C Rly
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in