Facts
The 33 applicants, employees of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (Prasar Bharati/All India Radio), were initially appointed as Technicians between 1983 and 1990
Source reference: p. 8-9They were subsequently promoted to Senior Technician and Engineering Assistant
Source reference: p. 9Following prolonged litigation that concluded with a Supreme Court order in 2013, pay parity was granted between Technicians, Senior Technicians, and Lighting Assistants retrospectively from July 1, 1983
Source reference: p. 9Consequently, both Technician and Senior Technician posts were placed in identical pay scales
Source reference: p. 9-10The applicants contended that since the pay scales became identical, their promotion to Senior Technician involved no financial benefit and should be ignored for the purpose of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes
Source reference: p. 10They further challenged the respondents' decision to treat pay scales granted via Office Memorandum (OM) dated 25.02.1999 as financial upgradations
Source reference: p. 10-11Issues
1. Whether the promotion from Technician to Senior Technician should be ignored for the purpose of granting financial upgradations under the ACP and MACP schemes due to retrospective pay parity
Source reference: p. 142. Whether the upgraded pay scales granted pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 25.02.1999 constitute a "financial upgradation" to be adjusted against MACP benefits
Source reference: p. 14Law Applied
The court primarily applied the provisions of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme as defined by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T)
Source reference: p. 10, 17It relied on the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s clarification dated 31.01.2018, which stipulated that the 1999 upgraded scales count as a financial upgradation
Source reference: p. 15-16Furthermore, the court adhered to the principle of judicial discipline and consistency, following the precedent set by a coordinate bench in OA No. 2449/2018, which held that upgraded scales under the 1999 OM constitute valid financial upgradations
Source reference: p. 16-17Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had already issued a binding clarification on 31.01.2018, stating that the upgraded pay scales of 1999 must be treated as one financial upgradation for MACP purposes
Source reference: p. 15-16The applicants failed to demonstrate that this clarification was arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to existing policy
Source reference: p. 16Regarding the promotion to Senior Technician, the Tribunal observed that the MACP Scheme specifically contemplates counting promotions even within the same grade pay for the purpose of financial upgradation
Source reference: p. 17The court rejected the argument that the pay parity was a mere "restoration," noting that the parity was implemented through executive orders that effectively revised and upgraded the pay structure
Source reference: p. 17-18Finally, the Tribunal emphasized the need for certainty in service jurisprudence, refusing to deviate from the settled interpretation established in OA No. 2449/2018
Source reference: p. 16, 18Holding
The Tribunal answered the issues in the negative, holding that the applicants are not entitled to ignore the promotion to Senior Technician or the 1999 pay upgradation for ACP/MACP purposes
The Court held that the upgraded scales under the OM dated 25.02.1999 constitute a valid financial upgradation and must be adjusted against MACP benefits
Source reference: p. 16-17Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no relief was granted
Source reference: p. 19Original Court PDF
Rakesh B PanaravsM/o Information And Broadcasting
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in