Pay scale determination and job evaluation are exclusive executive functions generally immune from judicial interference.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Messenger Boy on 17.10.1977 and subsequently promoted to Peon (1979), Poddar (1985), and Record Supplier (1990)

Following the implementation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes, the applicant was granted the 1st ACP in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3200-4900 (Grade Pay Rs. 2000) effective 01.10.2000

Upon the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) implementation, he received the 2nd MACP in Grade Pay (GP) Rs. 2400 and the 3rd MACP in GP Rs. 2800 effective 01.09.2008

The applicant approached the Tribunal challenging the order dated 08.06.2015, which rejected his claim for ACP-II in GP Rs. 4200 and MACP-III in GP Rs. 4600

He contended that his promotion to Record Supplier should be treated as a "fast track" promotion and that he was entitled to the pay scale of the next higher promotional post, 'Chargeman'

The respondents argued that his post was merged into Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) per SRO 54 (2006) and SRO 57 (2012), and he had already received the maximum permissible benefits under the rules

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of ACP-II in Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- and MACP-III in Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- based on the promotional hierarchy of the post of Chargeman.

2. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the determination of pay scales and job evaluations assigned by the executive and expert bodies.

The court primarily applied the principles governing the ACP and MACP Schemes as clarified by the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T)

It relied on Statutory Rules and Orders, specifically SRO 54 dated 20.04.2006 and SRO 57 dated 19.07.2012, which converted erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts (Record Supplier, Blue Printer) into Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) Group ‘C’ in GP Rs. 1800

Furthermore, the court applied the judicial precedent established in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 148, which holds that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is an exclusive executive function and courts should not ordinarily perform job evaluations

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had already been granted three financial upgradations (one ACP and two MACPs) in accordance with his service record

The applicant’s claim for GP Rs. 4200 and Rs. 4600 was predicated on the assumption that his hierarchy should be linked to the post of 'Chargeman'; however, the court found that the applicant failed to produce any relevant rule or evidence to justify such a placement

The respondents demonstrated that through SRO 54 and SRO 57, the applicant's cadre was re-designated as MTS with a specific pay structure, which the applicant failed to challenge in these proceedings

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant did not participate in departmental examinations, his promotion could not be termed "fast track"

Citing Jagjit Singh, the court emphasized that pay scale determination is the domain of expert bodies like Pay Commissions, and in the absence of a demonstrated violation of rules, the court cannot interfere in such technical evaluations or financial implications

The court affirmed that financial upgradations under the MACP scheme are purely personal to the employee and provide no grounds for claiming parity outside the established rules

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, sustaining the impugned order dated 08.06.2015. No order as to costs was made