MACP Scheme claims require re-examination by authorities considering Supreme Court's Rosamma Benny judgment.

The applicant's husband, a Group ‘D’ employee, joined service in 1975, was promoted to Points Man in 1991, and retired in 2015.

After learning about the MACP Scheme, the applicant submitted a representation on April 11, 2014, seeking three upgradations under MACP to Grade Pay Rs. 2800, Rs. 4200, and Rs. 4600.

Due to no response, an earlier Original Application No. 1364 of 2017 was filed, which resulted in the impugned order dated November 17, 2017.

The current application challenges this impugned order and seeks directions for the respondents to grant the three upgradations under MACP and consequential re-fixation of pay, pension, and family pension.

Whether the impugned order dated November 17, 2017, should be quashed and the respondents directed to grant three upgradations under MACP to the applicant's husband's grade pay of Rs. 2800, Rs. 4200, and Rs. 4600?

Whether the matter should be remitted back to the authorities for a detailed order in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Union of India and Another vs. Rosamma Benny and Others?

The court considered the principles established by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. Rosamma Benny and Others (Civil Appeal No. 996/2020, dated February 04, 2020).

This judgment directed the examination of whether postings on transfer or merger of pay scales/upgradations should be treated as the first promotion for MACP purposes.

It also highlighted the need to consider circulars from the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) dated June 10, 2009, regarding financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade, and September 29, 2010, on the availability of MACP benefits from the date of actual joining the entry grade.

The judgment emphasized the necessity of a detailed examination of facts and legal positions by the Tribunal, without being influenced by prior decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the applicant specifically referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and Another vs. Rosamma Benny and Others, which allowed an appeal and remitted the issue back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

The counsel argued that since the impugned order in the present case was passed in 2017, before the Supreme Court's decision, the authorities did not have the benefit of those directions.

The learned counsel f`or the respondents raised no objection to remitting the issue back.

Given that the previous orders did not consider the detailed aspects highlighted by the Supreme Court regarding the application of the MACP Scheme, including whether certain postings count as promotions or the impact of pay scale mergers, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter.

This approach ensures that the respondents can consider the Supreme Court's observations and pass a fresh, detailed order.

The Tribunal did not form any opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim, merely remitting the issue for re-consideration by the respondents.

There was no order as to costs.