Railway employees initially appointed as casual laborers, later regularized, are entitled to pay scale benefits.

The applicant, Vineet Kumar Nigam, was initially appointed as a High Skilled Technical Mistry (HSTM) against a sanctioned and vacant post of Inspector of Works Grade III (IOW) in May 1987.

He was granted temporary status in May 1988.

The applicant sought regularization through various legal proceedings, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which observed in 1989 that petitioners would be given an opportunity to appear before the Railway Recruitment Board for selection.

Subsequent O.A.s before the CAT, Jabalpur Bench, led to directions for a screening committee for selection and regularization.

On July 1, 1997, regularization on the post of IOW (Apprentice) occurred, and a corrigendum was issued regarding his regularization.

The applicant was finally regularized on June 10, 2004, after a selection process by a Screening Committee, against a vacant IOW post.

The Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1443/95 extended the benefit of IOW Grade from January 1, 1986, or from the date temporary status was acquired, for those employed against a vacant IOW post.

The applicant was initially granted benefits under the 2nd MACP Scheme on March 9, 2012, considering his past services and treating him as a 'substitute' as per IREM para 1512.

However, the respondents later issued an order dated December 2, 2015, withdrawing these benefits, specifically the second upgradation under MACP.

The respondents contended that the applicant was initially appointed as Casual Technical Mate in Railway Electrification on January 5, 1987, granted Temporary Status on January 10, 1988, and was later found suitable and appointed as Junior Engineer-II on October 5, 2004.

The withdrawal was based on a review by the Chief Personnel Officer, concluding he was not entitled to the second financial upgradation of PB-2 Grade Pay Rs. 4800/- w.e.f. September 1, 2008.

Whether the applicant was correctly treated as a `casual labour` from his initial appointment instead of a `substitute` by the respondents.

Whether the withdrawal of the second MACP Scheme benefits, which had been extended to the applicant on March 9, 2012, by the order dated December 2, 2015, was justified.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the notional and actual monetary benefits of fixation of pay similar to those in O.A. No. 1443/1995 and other connected matters.

Rule 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. II (1990 Edition), states that casual labourers granted temporary status are entitled to the same rights and benefits as temporary Railway Servants, including the pay scale of the grade in which they are appointed.

The definition of "Substitutes" in IREM para 1512, which refers to persons engaged on regular scale of pay against posts that fall vacant.

The principles established in O.A. No. 1443/1995 by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that Highly Skilled Technical Mistries (HSTMs) performing IOW Grade III duties were entitled to the enhanced pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 (revised from Rs. 425-700) from January 1, 1986, with monetary benefits from August 1, 1995.

The Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) introduced by Railway Board vide letter No. PC-V/2009/ACP/2 dated June 10, 2009, effective September 1, 2008.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant, initially a casual labourer, attained temporary status and was eventually regularized against a vacant IOW post (after appointment as Junior Engineer-II).

The core of the dispute revolved around whether his initial service period should be counted by treating him as a "substitute" or a "casual labourer" for MACP purposes.

The Tribunal referenced IREM para 1512, which defines "substitutes" as persons engaged in Indian Railway Establishments on a regular scale of pay against vacant posts, implicitly supporting the applicant's status as a substitute.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's case was squarely covered by the precedent set in O.A. No. 1443/1995 (Manoj Kumar Shrivastava and 15 others vs. Union of India and Others).

In that case, the Principal Bench had ruled that HSTMs performing IOW Grade III duties were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 (revised from Rs. 425-700) from January 1, 1986, with actual monetary benefits from August 1, 1995.

This ruling was based on the fact that casual labourers who acquire temporary status are entitled to the pay scale of the grade in which they are appointed, and the evidence indicated HSTMs were carrying out IOW Grade III duties.

The Tribunal in the present case determined, to maintain judicial parity, that the applicant, who was initially recognized as a "substitute" and granted MACP benefits, should not have those benefits withdrawn based on an altered interpretation of his initial status.

The Tribunal explicitly stated that the order dated 01.02.2024 in O.As Nos. 473/2015 & 505/2013 of this Bench had addressed similar issues, allowing benefits of notional fixation of pay to similarly situated persons.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the applicant as a "substitute" and extend him the same benefits as granted to similarly situated persons in other connected matters, explicitly referencing the notional benefits of fixation of pay in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 from January 1, 1986, and actual monetary benefits, including arrears, from August 1, 1995.

This exercise is to be completed within 90 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.