MACP on Promotional Hierarchy: Latest judgement by Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh

Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh while disposing the OA No. 1405/CH/2013 & OA No. 1676/HR/2013 has ordered that whatever decision is taken in the pending Writ Petition/SLP in Hon’ble High Court/Hon’ble Supre Court, Both Parties would be abide by the same, whatever decision comes first, out of both cases. COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IS PLACED BELOW

We invite all the parties, filed cases in various courts and all the Unions/Association, who are suffering from the anomalous MACP to join us in the legal fight on grant of MACP on Promotional Hierarchy. The next date of hearing of SLP at Supreme Court is 16/12/2014. Please hurry! Join the extended meeting of the Steering Committee at New Delhi on 15/11/2014.

-TKR Pillai, Convener

Steering Committee

Mob No. 9425372172

e-mail: [email protected]

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH

                                                                                Date of decision -29.10.2014

CORAM:      HONBLE MR.  SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)

                       HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)

O.A No. 1405/CH/2013

1. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh aged 56 years, Executive Engineer, Chandigarh Central Division No. 2, Central Public Works Department, Chandigarh.

2. Satya Pal Singh Saharan S/o Sh. Shamsher Singh, Executive Engineer (Electrical) Issar Project Electrical Division, Central Public Works Department, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh.

BY ADVOCATE: Sh. V.K. Sharma

APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government  of India, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi through its Director General.

RESPONDENTS

BY ADVOCATE:  Sh. Sanjay Goyal.

O.A No. 1676/HR/2013

1. Sh. Paramjit Saini, S/o Sh. Dev Raj Saini, Resident of 15/2-C, Rail Vihar, Sector 4, M.D.C. Panchkula.

2. Sh. Joginder Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Rulia Ram, working as EE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.

3. Sh. Darshan Singh Shaheed, S/o Sh. Bishan Singh, working as AE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.

4. Sh. Santokh Singh, S/o Sh. Ram Singh, working as AE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.

5. Sh. Jagjit Singh, S/o Sh. Saudagar Singh, working as AE in the office of Jalandhar Central Circle CPWD, Jalandhar.

6. Sh.Rakesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Madan Lal working as AE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.

7. Sh. Pritam Singh, S/o Sh. Harbans Singh, Resident of 649, Rishi Nagar, Near Shankar Garden Jalandhar.

8. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Wadhwa, S/o Sh. Arjun Dev Wadhwa, Resident of 341, Sector 25, Panchkula.

9. Sh. Pancham Chander, S/o Sh. Dhani Ram, age 60 years, R/o House No. 1771, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

10. Sh. Satish Chander, S/o Sh. Churangi Lal, working as AE in the office of CEN2I, CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Chandigarh.

11. Sh. Jai Dev, S/o Sh. Vidya Ram Lal, working as AE in the office of Chandigarh Central Division, CPWD, Sector -7/B, Chandigarh.

12. Sh. Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Verinder Nath R/o Flat No. 410 Arwveli, GHS-36, Sector 20, Panchkula.

13. Sh. Madhav Surup, S/o Sh. Sujraj Parkash, R/o House  No. 241, Vivaka Nand Park, Maqsadan, Jallandhar, Pin 144008.

BY ADVOCATE:   Sh. K.B.Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel for the applicants.

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government  of India, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi through its Director General.

RESPONDENTS

BY ADVOCATE:  Sh. Sanjay Goyal.

ORDER (ORAL)

HON’BLE MR.  SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-

Both the cases involve identical facts and points of law and as such these have been taken up for final disposal by a common order. For the facility of convenience, facts have been taken from O.A. No. 1405/CH/2013 titled Jaswant Singh & Anr. Vs. U.O.I etc. This O.A has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(a) Declare the provision of para 1 of the letter dated 19.05.2009 and para 2 of the Scheme to the effect that MACP is to be granted in next higher grade pay instead of pay band as redundant in view of the law laid by this Hon’ble Tribunal and as upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raj Pal Vs. Union of India and which has since been implemented by the concerned Department.

(b) Quash the action of respondents in not fixing pay of the applicants, while granting 3rd Financial upgradation under MACP, in the promotional pay band + grade of Superintending Engineer i.e. Rs. 37400-67000 + Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- and instead fixing their pay only in next grade pay of Rs. 7600/- in the Pay Band of Executive Engineer is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory harsh, void at initio and violative of provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in eyes of law more so in view of decision taken in Raj Pal’s (supra).

(c) Issue direction to the respondents to fix the pay of applicants on grant of 3rd Financial upgradation in PB of Rs. 37400-67000 + Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- i.e. of higher post of Superintending Engineer from due date with all the consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances with interest thereon @ 12 % from the date of actual payment and cost of the present petition.

(d) Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to which the applicants are held entitled to may also kindly be issued in their favour.

                                            

2.            On the commencement of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a similar controversy with regard to the grant to MACP, as raised in the instant O.A. has already been put to rest by this Tribunal in the case of Raj Pal Vs. Union of India and Ors. as upheld by the jurisdictional High Court. Subsequently, in case of Babu Ram and Others Vs. U.O.I & Ors and in case of Tilak Raj Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. decided on 19.12.2013., this Tribunal had allowed the O.As on the basis of the decision rendered in case of Raj Pal (supra) but both these cases are pending for final adjudication before the higher courts. The former case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10435/2014 wherein impugned judgment dated 07.11.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 24279/2013, has been stayed and the latter case is pending before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. He submitted the present O.A may be disposed of in the terms that whatever, decision is taken in the pending Writ Petition and SLP in above cases, both the parties would abide by the same.

3.            Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents did not object to the disposal of the present O.A in the requested manner.

4.            Considering the consensual agreement arrived between the parties and the aforementioned position that similar issue is pending before the highest Court, at this stage, we dispose of the present O.A with an understanding as reached between the parties that whatever decision is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court/ Hon’ble High Court in pending petitions, the parties would be abide by the same, whatever decision comes first, out of both cases.

5.            With the observations and directions as above, these O.As stand disposed of with no orders as to costs.