MACP: Movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard is a lateral induction, not a promotion; MACP benefits to be granted accordingly.

The Review Applications (RAs) were filed by the Union of India (respondents in the original applications) to review orders dated 20.01.2023 in OA No. 49/2015 (Rakesh Kumar Dixit & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.) and 24.02.2023 in OA No. 110/2015 (Durgesh Saxena & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.).

The original applications sought reliefs including the quashing of impugned orders dated 22.5.2014, 15.10.2014, 10.2.2011, and 2/6.9.2011, and a direction to restore MACP benefits, refund recovered amounts with 12% interest, and pay arrears.

The Tribunal, in its order dated 20.01.2023, allowed OA No. 49/2015, directing respondents to grant MACP (if not already done) and not recover any benefits, further specifying that promotion from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard should not be counted as relevant for MACP.

It also ordered the refund of any recovered amounts within 3 months with GPF interest rates if not refunded.

The Union of India challenged this order before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9291/2023, stating that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal was factually different.

The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 14.03.2024, disposed of the petition as not pressed, granting liberty to approach the Tribunal for filing a Review Petition.

1. Whether there is an error in the Tribunal's order dated 20.01.2023 in OA No. 49/2015 and 24.02.2023 in OA No. 110/2015 justifying review under the ground that the decisions relied upon were factually different.

2. Whether the Tribunal's direction to grant MACPs "without counting the promotion from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard" implies a blanket direction to grant inadmissible MACPs even if the applicants had already availed three promotions.

The Tribunal applied the principle established by judicial pronouncements regarding the classification of movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard.

It referenced its own orders in OA No. 740/2015 and OA No. 396/2017 dated 30.07.2021.

Crucially, it relied on the judgment dated 19.07.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in WP No. 18244/2013 (Union of India through G.M. E.C.R. and Ors. v. C.A.T. & Ors.), which definitively held that "the movement of a Senior Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Guard is only lateral induction and not a promotion".

This Allahabad High Court judgment also noted that the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 26787 of 2008 on 7.12.2011, thereby settling the law on this point.

The Tribunal further applied the principles of MACP entitlement, holding that if such a movement is not a promotion, then the individuals would be entitled to MACP benefits accordingly.

The Tribunal found that the Union of India's contention before the High Court, alleging factual differences in the relied-upon judgments, was a misrepresentation.

The core issue in the present case—whether movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard constitutes a promotion—was identical to the issue settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in WP No. 18244/2013, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal had previously relied on the same principle in its own orders (OA No. 740/2015 and OA No. 396/2017), and critically, during the final hearing of the original application, the Union of India's counsel did not dispute the factual similarity.

Moreover, the Tribunal clarified that its original order did not issue a "blanket direction" for MACPs; rather, it directed that MACP benefits be "admissible" to the applicants, explicitly excluding the promotion from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard from being counted.

This implies that the calculation of MACP would still adhere to regulations, ensuring only admissible benefits are granted after excluding the specific promotion.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded there was no error in its earlier order, as "not agreeing with the interpretation or view taken by the Court cannot be a ground for review".

The Tribunal found no error in its prior order dated 20.01.2023 in OA No. 49/2015, which directed the granting of admissible MACPs to the applicants without counting the movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard as a promotion.

Any pending Misc. Applications were also disposed of.