Review of judgment cannot be based on disagreement with interpretation or views of the Court.

The applicants in RA No. 03/2024 (original applicants in OA No. 49/2015) sought relief for the benefit of MACP, challenging orders dated 22.05.2014, 15.10.2014, 10.02.2011, and 02.09.2011.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur Bench, allowed OA No. 49/2015 on 20.01.2023, directing respondents to grant MACP (if not already done) and not to recover any benefits, clarifying that promotion from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard should not be considered relevant for MACP calculations.

The CAT also ordered the refund of any recovered amounts with interest.

Similarly, the CAT allowed OA No. 110/2015 on 24.02.2023.

The Union of India (respondents in the original OAs and applicants in the RAs) filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9291/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, claiming the CAT had relied on factually different decisions.

The High Court, on 14.03.2024, disposed of the writ petition as not pressed, granting liberty to the Union of India to file a Review Petition before the Tribunal.

Consequently, RA No. 03/2024 and RA No. 04/2024 were filed by the Union of India to review the CAT's orders.

The original CAT order of 20.01.2023 had relied on a previous CAT order dated 30.07.2021 (in OA No. 740/2015 and OA No. 396/2017) and a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 19.07.2013 (WP No. 18244/2013).

Whether the CAT's original order dated 20.01.2023 (in OA No. 49/2015) and 24.02.2023 (in OA No. 110/2015) should be reviewed on the ground that the decisions relied upon were factually different.

Whether the contention of the Union of India that the original applicants had already availed three promotions, even if the movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard is not counted as a promotion, warrants a review of the CAT's direction to not count said movement for MACP benefits.

The Central Administrative Tribunal relied on its own prior order dated 30.07.2021 in OA No. 740/2015 and OA No. 396/2017 and the judgment dated 19.07.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in WP No. 18244/2013 (Union of India through G.M. E.C.R. and Ors. vs. C.A.T. & Ors.).

These precedents established the principle that the movement of a Senior Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Guard is a lateral induction and not a promotion for the purpose of granting benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS).

The Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court (by dismissing the SLP against the Allahabad High Court's decision) affirmed that if Senior Goods Guards and Passenger Guards were in the same pay scale, such a movement would not constitute a promotion.

The principle adopted was that MACPS benefits should be granted without considering such lateral movements as promotions.

The CAT found that the Union of India's contention before the High Court, which formed the basis for allowing the filing of the Review Petition—that the relied-upon decisions were factually different—was a misrepresentation.

The core issue in the previous cases, including the Allahabad High Court's judgment, was identical: whether the movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard counted as a promotion for MACP purposes.

The CAT noted that during the original hearing of OA No. 49/2015, the counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the factual similarity when queried.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the ground for review based on factual difference was invalid.

Regarding the Union of India's argument that applicants had already received three promotions, irrespective of the Goods Guard to Passenger Guard movement, the CAT clarified that its original order did not grant a blanket MACP benefit.

Instead, the direction was to calculate "admissible" MACP benefits, specifically excluding the Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard movement from the promotion count.

This implies that the quantum of MACP would still be determined based on other promotions received, ensuring that only admissible benefits are granted.

Thus, the original order already accounted for the need to calculate admissible benefits without specific instructions for a "blanket" grant.

The Tribunal found no error in its original order dated 20.01.2023 in OA No. 49/2015, upholding its previous directive that MACP benefits should be granted to the applicants without counting the movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard as a promotion.

The Tribunal also clarified that its original order did not direct a "blanket" grant of MACP but rather sought the calculation of "admissible" MACP benefits, taking into account other promotions if any.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of.