Abraham Koshy vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY on 13 October 2026

1. Abraham Koshy S/o Late V.V.Koshy Aged 55 years Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) S.W.Railway, Bengaluru-560023

2. Radhakrishnan Edakkattil S/o Velayudhan. E Aged 58 years Chief Loco Inspector S.W.Railway, Bengaluru-560023

3. K.V.V.K.Kumar S/o K.N.S.Sarma Aged 57 years Chief Loco Inspector S.W.Railway, Bengaluru-560023

4. H.G.Thimme Gowda S/o H.T.Giriyappa Aged 58 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) #1780, 1st Block, Sir M.V.Layout Ullal Main Road, Bengaluru-560010

5. Sampath.B S/o G.Bhima Rao Aged 57 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) #150/83, 36th cross, 7th Main 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041

6. P.Sunil Kumar S/o C.Gopalakrishnan Nair Aged 56 years Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) S.W.Railway,Bengaluru-560023

7. Vijaykumar S/o Late Padmanabha Aged 57 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) #72, Vinayaka Enclave Chikkabanavara, Bengaluru-560090

8. V.Gandhi S/o K.C.Velayudham Aged 61 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) #72, 5th cross, RR Layout Chikkabanavara, Bengaluru-560090

9. B.Balakrishnan S/o V.N.Bhupathy Aged 57 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) S. W.Railway,Bengaluru-560023 #14, Vinayak Nagar Chikkabanavara, Bengaluru-560090

10. G.Balasubramani S/o P.Govindaswamy Aged 59 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) #162, 6th cross, 4th Main Road K.R.Agrahara, Bengaluru-560023

11. Syed Liaquath Ali S/o Ahmed Ali.S Aged 56 years Rtd Loco Pilot (Mail) #33, 3rd cross, RR Layout Bengaluru-560090

12. A.G.Chittibabu S/o A.P.Govindan Aged 59 years Loco Pilot (Mail) S.W.Railway, Bengaluru-560023

13. Yuvaraja.K S/o Beliappa Gowda Aged 63 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) #41, 3rd cross,RR Layout Chikkabanavara, Bengaluru-560090

14. V.Ramakrishna S/o Adiseshacharlu Aged 58 years Retired Loco Pilot (Mail/Exp) #45, Vedhartham Residency Medarahalli, Chikabanavara Bengaluru-560090

…Applicants

(By Shri K. Shivakumar, Advocate-through video conference)

Vs.

1. Union of India Rep. by General Manager South Western Railway Rail Soudha, Gadag Road, Hubballi-580020

2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, Bengaluru-560023

.… Respondents

(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel)

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Declare that the applicants are entitled to be considered and granted the second MACP in Pay Band-2 + Grade Pay Rs. 4600 with effect from 01.09.2008 or on completion of 10 years from the date of their first promotion whichever is later;

(ii) Direct the respondents to grant the applicants the 3rd financial upgradation in Pay Band-2 + Grade Pay Rs. 4800 with effect from the date of completion of 10 years from the date of last promotion/MACP with all consequential benefits arising therefrom within a timeframe found as just and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal and

(iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Facts in brief are that the applicants who were initially appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot were promoted as Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail) at regular intervals. The scale of pay of these posts were merged and brought under a single Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- on implementation of 6th CPC from 01.01.2006. It is the contention of the applicants that since these posts had been brought under common Grade Pay, the promotion earned in these posts to be ignored for getting the benefit of MACP as per Clause 5 of Annexure to the RBE No. 101/2009. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Tribunal-Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 561/2011, DD: 22.02.2012 and Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 833/2014, DD: 19.09.2016 confirmed by the Hon'ble High Courts of Kerala and Telangana and by the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the representation(s) submitted by them remains unconsidered. Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this OA.

3. Learned counsel Shri K. Shivakumar representing the applicants submitted that the Assistant Loco Pilots on promotion to the post of Loco Pilots (Goods) in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 are held to have been accorded one promotion. Further promotion to the higher posts carrying pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- or above, which got merged in one pay band Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- have to be ignored in accordance with the provisions of Clause 5 of the MACP scheme.

4. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents, placing reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Harbans Lal

Verma (Civil Appeal No. 9346/2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 35363/2025) and connected matters submitted that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra, and accordingly, the OA deserves to be rejected.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Harbans Lal Verma and connected matters, supra, wherein the following question was framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court for determination: Whether, on a proper interpretation of Paragraphs 2, 5 and 8 of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), the respondent is entitled to financial upgradations to Grade Pay Rs.4600 and Rs.4800, or whether the promotions earned by him within the Guard cadre are liable to be counted for the purposes of the Scheme?

6. Having analysed the legislative history of ACP Scheme of October, 1999 and MACP scheme notified by the Railway Board vide RBE No. 101/2009 dated 10.06.2009, operative with effect from 01.09.2008, issued in supersession of the ACP scheme, has recorded the conclusions on the question formulated as under:

“(i) Paragraph 8 of the MACPS applies to the Guard cadre. The posts of Senior Goods Guard, Passenger Guard, Senior Passenger Guard, and Mail/Express Guard are distinct posts in the promotional hierarchy as per the applicable Recruitment Rules, carrying the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 in Pay Band PB-

2. The functional promotions earned within the Guard cadre constitute "promotions" within the meaning of Paragraph 8. An employee who has traversed the Guard cadre up to Mail/Express Guard has earned three promotions counted under Paragraph 8 (with the Passenger Guard to Senior Passenger Guard movement ignored under Paragraph 5) and has thereby exhausted all three financial upgradation slots under the MACPS. He is not entitled to any further financial upgradation.

(ii) It is further recorded that the promotions so earned were not, in substance, financially inconsequential merely because Grade Pay remained constant. Each promotion within the Guard cadre entailed a promotional increment and the consequential enhancement of running-duty allowances and post-specific emoluments, the details of which have been noted in the preceding analysis. An employee who received these financial benefits through successive promotions has not experienced financial stagnation within the meaning of the MACPS and is not entitled to further financial upgradation under the Scheme on that ground.

(iii) The illustration to Paragraph 5, correctly understood, is a transitional provision addressing the treatment of pre-MACPS ACP era promotions and upgradations. It does not override Paragraph 8 in respect of the post-01.09.2008 MACPS period. The Guard cadre's pre-revised pay scales correspond to those in the illustration, but the illustration directs only that pre-MACPS promotions be ignored for the purpose of the MACPS starting count; it does not direct that all subsequent promotions earned within the MACPS period, or all promotions earned before the MACPS period but counted under Paragraph 8, are similarly to be ignored.

(iv) RBE No.76/2011 and RBE No. 142/2012, as DoPT-consulted binding executive clarifications of the MACPS, correctly apply Paragraph 8 to the Guard cadre and correctly reflect the position that MACP upgradation cannot exceed the Grade Pay ceiling of the promotional hierarchy. These circulars are in conformity with, and not in derogation of, the parent Scheme. They must be given full effect.

(v) The ratio of this Court in Union of India v. Mukti Singha, Civil Appeal No. 3321/2018, and Union of India v. Birendra Kujur, Civil Appeal No. 3328/2018, that an employee cannot be granted Grade Pay higher than what he may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy applies to the MACPS and governs the present case. In M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the endorsement of DoPT clarifications as integral to and binding under the Scheme further reinforces the Appellants' position.

(vi) The dismissal of SLP(C) No. 20906/2019 and connected matters on 07.11.2023 does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution. That order expressly reserved the question of law. The High Court erred in treating those dismissals as a binding determination of the correct legal position.

(vii) The impugned order of the High Court, in following the Jodhpur Bench judgment in Laxman Lal Parihar on the basis of judicial discipline without independently examining the MACPS provisions, the Recruitment Rules, or the binding circulars, proceeded on an erroneous legal foundation. The conclusion reached by the Jodhpur Bench, followed by the Jaipur Bench, that Paragraph 5's illustration overrides Paragraph 8 for the Guard cadre, and that the Guard cadre movements are not promotions for MACP purposes, is incorrect and is, by this judgment, set aside.”

7. Further, in paragraph 66 and 67, it is held thus: “66. In the light of the foregoing analysis and the conclusions recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order

dated 06.01.2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16939/2024 is set aside. The orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dated 11.07.2014 in O.A. No. 468/2011 and dated 11.07.2024 in O.A. No. 92/2015, to the extent they directed the grant of MACP financial upgradations at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Grade Pay Rs. 4800 to the Respondent, are set aside. The speaking order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Kota, rejecting the Respondent's MACP claim on the basis of Paragraph 8 of the MACPS and RBE No. 142/2012, is restored and confirmed.

67. No recovery of any MACP benefits already paid to the Respondent shall be made. The statement made before this Court on 01.12.2025 by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Appellants that no recovery in terms of the impugned order shall be effected from the Respondent is recorded and forms part of this order.”

8. In the light of this judgment, it is crystal clear that if the employee has been granted three promotions, then such employee is not entitled for any further financial upgradation as per the MACP scheme. As per para 20 of the MACP scheme, financial upgradations shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to the seniority positon, as such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employees in the grade have received higher Grade Pay under MACP scheme.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, OA lacks merit, and accordingly, stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ksk/