Promotions neutralised by post or pay-scale merger must be ignored for MACP purposes.

The applicant joined the Railways as Permanent Way Mistry on 12.04.1989 after appointment dated 14.03.1989 and underwent in-service training until 09.05.1990, joining the working post on 10.05.1990. He was promoted as JE Grade-II on 06.03.1998 and JE Grade-I on 01.11.2003. He was granted MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600 with effect from 01.09.2008 and subsequently promoted as SSE in the same Grade Pay; a further MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800 was granted with effect from 01.09.2018.

The applicant contended that his promotion from Permanent Way Mistry/Supervisor to JE Grade-II had been neutralised by subsequent merger/restructuring of the relevant posts and pay scales, and therefore ought to be ignored under Para 5 of the MACP Scheme. He claimed the 2nd MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800 from 12.04.2009 and the 3rd MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/Level-9 from 12.04.2019, after counting his training period.

His claim was rejected by letter dated 30.01.2025 and Speaking Order dated 10.03.2025, following an earlier direction of the Tribunal to reconsider the matter.

1. Whether the applicant’s promotion from Permanent Way Mistry/Supervisor to JE Grade-II, having been affected by subsequent merger/restructuring of posts or pay scales carrying the same Grade Pay, was liable to be ignored for determining his entitlement to financial upgradations under Para 5 of the MACP Scheme.

2. Whether the applicant’s training period from 12.04.1989 to 09.05.1990 was liable to be counted as qualifying regular service for determining his MACP entitlement.

3. Whether the impugned letter dated 30.01.2025 and Speaking Order dated 10.03.2025 were sustainable in law.

The Tribunal applied Para 5 of the MACP Scheme issued through Railway Board’s RBE No. 101/2009 dated 10.06.2009, under which promotions or financial upgradations granted to grades that subsequently carry the same Grade Pay because of merger of pay scales or upgradation/restructuring of posts are to be ignored for MACP purposes.

The Tribunal relied on the principle that a promotion neutralised by such merger cannot be treated as a promotion for determining the number of MACP benefits.

It referred to the decisions of the CAT, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 203/00428/2015, the CAT, Kolkata Bench in O.A. No. 350/00564/2024, and the CAT, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 4179/2023, which applied Para 5 to promotions from Permanent Way Mistry to Junior Engineer where the relevant posts or pay scales were subsequently merged.

The Tribunal also directed consideration of the training-period claim in accordance with the applicable Railway Board instructions and the judicial precedents relied upon by the applicant, including the Cuttack Bench decision dated 14.11.2017 and subsequent affirming orders.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s promotion from Permanent Way Mistry/Supervisor to JE Grade-II had occurred before the relevant restructuring/merger and that the subsequent pay-scale merger resulted in the posts carrying the same Grade Pay. Applying Para 5 of the MACP Scheme and the cited precedents, the Tribunal held that the respondents were required to examine whether that promotion had been neutralised and therefore had to be ignored while computing the applicant’s MACP benefits.

The Tribunal did not itself finally determine the applicant’s entitlement to the 2nd and 3rd MACP or conclusively rule that the training period must be counted. Instead, it held that the respondents had failed to properly reconsider both issues in light of the governing instructions and precedents. The rejection orders were therefore found unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for the 2nd and 3rd MACP by applying Para 5 of the MACP Scheme, particularly on whether his earlier promotion had been neutralised by merger or restructuring, and to examine separately whether the training period from 12.04.1989 to 09.05.1990 was countable service under the applicable Railway instructions and precedents. A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within six weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order. No order as to costs was made.