- (1.) Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The East Central Railway through its officers has filed this writ application challenging the judgement and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application 1241 of 2011 (Sachchidananda Ram and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors.) in Annexure-VIII.
(3.) The original application before the Tribunal was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 30. The case of the above respondents before the Tribunal was that all of them were working in the cadre of Guards under Mughal Sarai Division of the East Central Railway. The Sixth Central Pay Commission, Ministry of Railways, Government of India (Railway Board) had initially floated a Scheme called Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and subsequently replaced the same by way of introducing a new scheme called Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). Under the new Scheme, the previous system of granting two promotions/financial upgradations after 12 and/or 24 years of regular services was substituted by a new arrangement of granting three promotions/financial upgradations after 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service. All the above private respondents had entered into service as Goods Guard in the initial Scale of Rs. 2800/-. Their progression in service is Goods Guard- Senior Goods Guard-Passenger Guard-Senior Goods Guard and finally Mail/Express Guard. The scale of Senior Goods Guard and Passenger Guard was one and the same i.e. Rs.5000-8000 and therefore placing a Senior Goods Guard as Passenger Guard does not amount to promotion and it is a case of lateral induction. After the new scheme i.e. Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) was adopted by the Railways, all the private respondents were extended the benefits of the scheme under different orders in 2010. They were given financial upgradation to the pay-scale of Rs. 4600-4800 (from Rs. 4200/-) depending on their entitlement and based upon their length of service. This benefit was extended to them after conducting screening inquiry as envisaged under the Scheme. After such upgradation, the private respondents started getting their enhanced salary but had not been paid the arrears. When the matter stood thus, in response to certain queries made by some of the Zonal Railways, the Railway Board issued a letter dated 10th February, 2011 addressed to the General Managers of East Central Railway, the South Central Railway, the Central Railway and the South-East Central Railway, clarifying, inter alia that in terms of the Board's letter dated 10.6.2009 on the subject of MACPS, the promotion from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard should be counted for the purpose of MACPS whereas in terms of Para 5 of the said letter, the promotion from Passenger Guard should be ignored for MACPS since the categories of Passenger Guard (5000-8000) and Senior Passenger Guards (5500-9000) had been merged and allotted Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- in Pay Band-II. On the basis of the above letter of the Railway Board, the General Manager East Central Railway, Hazipur issued a letter dated 21.2.2011 directing that if any action contrary to the above clarification issued by the Board had been taken, the same should be rectified. In compliance of the above letter, the impugned order dated 2oth May, 2011 was issued cancelling earlier orders granting the benefit under MACPS to the said private respondents and reducing/refixing their pay by treating their movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard as promotion and counting the same for the purpose of MACPS. The above order dated 20th May, 2011 was challenged by the private respondents before the Tribunal on the ground that movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard cannot be treated as a promotion as both the posts carry the same grade pay. The Tribunal accepted such contention of the private respondents, placed reliance on a Judgment of Ernaculum Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in a similar matter and allowed the original application.;