Facts
The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Station Master (ASM) in the Railway Department on 05.05.1986
Source reference: p.2After a voluntary transfer from the Central Railway to the North Central Railway in 1991, he accepted a "bottom seniority" and a lower pay scale
Source reference: p.4-5Throughout his 33-year career, he claimed he received only one promotion and was denied time-bound financial upgradations under the ACP (1999) and MACP (2009) schemes
Source reference: p.2The applicant previously filed OA No. 202/115/2019, which resulted in a direction to the respondents to decide his representation
Source reference: p.3The respondents subsequently passed an order on 26.03.2019 rejecting his claims, leading to the present litigation
Source reference: p.3During the pendency of the case, the respondents issued orders granting the applicant the 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations (Grade Pay Rs. 4800 and Rs. 5400) effective from 16.02.2018, based on a new Railway Board circular
Source reference: p.5The applicant challenged this effective date, contending he was entitled to the 3rd upgradation from 05.05.2016 (completion of 30 years)
Source reference: p.6Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme effective from the date of completion of 30 years of service (05.05.2016) rather than the date prescribed by the Railway Board (16.02.2018)?
Source reference: p.6 / para. 4 & 72. Whether the court can interfere with the policy decisions of the executive regarding the determination of pay scales and effective dates of financial benefits?
Source reference: p.8 / para. 8Law Applied
The court relied on the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and Railway Board Circulars, specifically RBE No. 22/2018 and RBE No. 26/2020 dated 25.02.2020, which mandated that promotions from ASM to SM should be ignored for MACP purposes only with effect from 16.02.2018
Source reference: p.7The court applied the judicial principle established in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 148, which dictates that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is an executive function, and courts should generally refrain from job evaluation or altering dates of financial implications determined by expert bodies like Pay Commissions
Source reference: p.8Reasoning
The Tribunal examined the respondents' compliance with the Railway Board’s policy. It noted that according to RBE No. 26/2020, the benefit of ignoring the ASM-to-SM promotion for MACP eligibility was expressly made admissible only from 16.02.2018, following the notification of recruitment amendments
Source reference: p.7The respondents had already issued orders on 10.06.2020 granting the applicant his 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations in Level 8 and Level 9 w.e.f. 16.02.2018 in strict accordance with this circular
Source reference: p.8The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s claim for the benefit to be backdated to 2016 was untenable because the effective date is a policy decision governed by executive instructions
Source reference: p.8Citing Jagjit Singh, the Tribunal underscored that it lacks the expertise to reassess the financial implications or the specific dates of pay scale revisions set by the executive
Source reference: p.8Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant had already been granted three financial upgradations as per the applicable rules and that his claim for an earlier effective date was without merit
The Tribunal answered the issues by affirming that the effective date of 16.02.2018 was legally sound under existing Railway Board policy
Source reference: p.8Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p.9Original Court PDF
SUBHASH WAYGAONKARvsM/o Railways
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in