Merged pay scales cannot diminish ACP/MACP entitlements; financial upgradations must follow the promotional hierarchy.

The 26 applicants were retired Group-C civilian employees of the Military Engineering Services, Ministry of Defence, who had initially been appointed as Mazdoors between 1977 and 1982 and were subsequently re-designated as Mates in 2008.

They served in various trades and generally did not receive regular promotions.

They were granted financial upgradations under the erstwhile ACP Scheme and later under the MACP Scheme.

Following the implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and merger of certain pay scales, the applicants claimed that their ACP benefits had not been correctly protected or adjusted.

They contended that they were entitled to the 1st ACP in Grade Pay (GP) ₹1,900, the 2nd ACP in GP ₹2,400 on completion of 24 years, and the 3rd MACP in GP ₹2,800 on completion of 30 years of qualifying service.

Their claim relied upon departmental communications dated 12 September 2014 and 30 April 2015, subsequent clarification dated 4 June 2018, and the benefit allegedly granted to similarly situated employee MES No. 371140, Raja Ram, through PTO No. 34/2021 dated 23 August 2021.

After their representation dated 11 April 2024 and legal notice dated 19 June 2024 were not acted upon, they filed the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents argued that, under the Government of India letter dated 10 November 2009, GP ₹1,900 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of ₹3,050–4,590 was to be counted for MACP purposes and that the applicants had already received the benefits due to them.

Whether the applicants were entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme in GP ₹1,900, ₹2,400 and ₹2,800 on completion of 12, 24 and 30 years of qualifying service respectively, despite the merger of pay scales and the benefits already granted to them.

Whether denial of the claimed ACP/MACP benefits, when similar benefits had been granted to similarly situated employees, was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential re-fixation of pay, pension and retiral benefits, together with arrears.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the ACP Scheme, under which financial upgradations were available after 12 and 24 years of service, and the MACP Scheme, under which financial upgradations were available after 10, 20 and 30 years, subject to the applicable conditions.

Relying on D.S. Rawat v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 3038/2013, and Union of India v. K.T. Akhtar, W.P. (C) No. 1371/2007, the Tribunal applied the principle that merged pay scales are to be ignored for ACP purposes and financial upgradation is to be determined with reference to the promotional hierarchy rather than merely the hierarchy of pay scales.

It also relied on State of Haryana v. Satbir Singh, (2002) 6 SCC 634, and State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, for the principle that similarly situated employees should not be treated discriminatorily.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Chaman Lal v. Union of India, O.A. No. 306/2022 and connected matters, which directed grant of 1st ACP in GP ₹1,900, 2nd ACP in GP ₹2,400 and 3rd MACP in GP ₹2,800, along with consequential revision of pay and pension.

The Tribunal found that the controversy was directly covered by its earlier decision in Chaman Lal, and that the respondents’ counsel could not dispute the applicability of that ruling to the present applicants.

Since the applicants were similarly situated to the employees in the earlier batch, including Raja Ram, the Tribunal applied the principle of parity and held that the merger of pay scales could not deprive them of the appropriate financial upgradations in the promotional hierarchy.

The respondents’ contention that the applicants had already received their admissible MACP benefits was therefore rejected by implication.

Applying the earlier ruling, the Tribunal held that the applicants’ ACP/MACP progression had to be recalculated as GP ₹1,900 after 12 years, GP ₹2,400 after 24 years and GP ₹2,800 after 30 years of qualifying service.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants: (a) 1st ACP in GP ₹1,900 on completion of 12 years of service; (b) 2nd ACP in GP ₹2,400 on completion of 24 years of service; and (c) 3rd MACP in GP ₹2,800 on completion of 30 years of service.

They were further directed to revise the applicants’ pay, pension and retiral benefits accordingly and disburse consequential arrears of pay and allowances, restricted to three years preceding the filing of the O.A., within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.