WP/22850/2023 of THE UNION OF INDIA Vs THE REGISTRAR on 9 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.Dhandapani J.) This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 17.03.2023 in OA/310/1276/2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

2. The learned Senior Panel Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent was appointed as Tracer on 03.05.1980 and after promotions as Draughtsman, Chargeman Grade II (Technical), Chargeman Grade 1, Assistant Foreman (Technical), superannuated from service as Junior Works Manager in the third petitioner factory on 31.01.2015. On 06.01.2014, the second respondent filed a detailed appeal seeking grant of second financial upgradation in the grade pay of

Rs.5,400/- under ACP Scheme and third financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.6,600/- under MACP Scheme with all attendant benefits, however, the claim of the second respondent was rejected on the ground that the second respondent had earned two promotions in his career from Tracer to Draughtsman and from Draughtsman to Chargeman/AF/JWM(T). Hence, the second respondent filed OA/310/1276/2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 17.03.2023, allowed the said original application by granting first promotion with effect from 19.04.2003; second promotion with effect from 03.05.2004 and third promotion with effect from 03.05.2010 and directed the petitioners to refix the salary of the second respondent giving effect to the above direction and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

3. The learned Senior Panel Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that MACP is available only when a person is stagnated in a post with the same scale of pay without any promotion, however, in the present case, the second respondent was granted promotions from Tracer to Draughtsman, Draughtsman to Chargeman and thereby, his claim for third financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.6,600/- under MACP Scheme with all attendant benefits was rejected by the petitioners, however, it was modified by the Tribunal which is impermissible one.

4. Though the name of the second respondent is printed in the cause list, today when the matter is taken up for consideration, there is no representation for the second respondent. Considering the pendancy of the writ petition, this Court is inclined to proceed with the case and decide the same based on the materials available on record.

5. The contention of the petitioners is that the second respondent employee obtained promotions from Tracer to Draughtsman and from Draughtsman to Chargeman, thereby, his claim for third financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.6,600/- under MACP Scheme with all attendant benefits was rejected, however, Draughtsman is not a promotional post from the post of Tracer and the same was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (1995) Supp (3) SCC 528 [Union of India Vs. Debashis Kar]. The said decision was relied by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal worked out ACPs in terms of MACP Scheme.

6. It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portions of the order impugned in this writ petition: “14. The respondents have counted promotion from Tracer (260-430) to Draughtsman (330-560) as the first promotion. The pay scale of the post of Tracer which was initially at 260-430, was later on revised to Rs.330-560 as could be seen from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Debashis Kar (1995) Supp (3) SCC 528, extract of which is as hereunder:- “13.We will first take up the case of draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factories………………………… According to the Tribunal, the qualifications prescribed for draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories are similar or equivalent to those prescribed for recruitment in C.P.W.D. …………………………. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that as per the pay scales fixed on the basis of report of the First Pay Commission of 1947 there was no difference in the pay scales of Draughtsmen and Tracers in the Ordnance Factories and the pay scales of Draughtsmen and Tracers in C.P.W.D……………. and Tracers in Ordnance Factories as well as in C.P.W.D. were placed in the scale of Rs. 60-150. On the basis of the report of the Second Pay Commission in

………………………..Tracers in the Ordnance Factories and C.P.W.D. were placed in the same pay scale of Rs. 110-200 By Notification dated 1-9- 1965, ……….. Tracer was designated as Draughtsman Grade III. Thereafter on the basis of the report of the Third Pay Commission in 1973, Tracer in the Ordnance Factories and Draughtsmen Grade III in C.P.W.D. were placed in the same pay scale of Rs. 260-430 ………….. This would show that Tracer in Ordnance Factories has all along been treated as equivalent to Tracer/Draughtsman Grade III in C.P.W.D. and Draughtsman in Ordnance Factories has all along been treated as equivalent to Assistant Draughtsman/Draughtsman Grade II in C.P.W.D. As a result of the revision of pay scales in C.P.W.D. on the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, the pay scale of Draughtsman Grade III was revised to Rs. 330-560, while that of Draughtsman Grade II was revised to Rs. 425-700 and of Draughtsman Grade I was revised to Rs. 550-750. The denial of similar revision of pay scale to Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories would result in their being down-graded to the level of Tracer/Draughtsman Grade III in C.P.W.D. Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 cannot, in our opinion, be construed as having such an effect.”

15. The above judgment of the Apex Court clearly reflects that the pay scale of Tracer in the Respondents’ Organization was revised from 260-430 to 330-560 w.e.f.1973. As such, it is only when the Grade Pay of the applicant underwent an upward revision from Rs.4200 to Rs.4600 that the applicant is treated to have got his first ACP/promotion, which is effective from 19-04-2003 when the applicant was promoted from Draughtsman I to Asst. Foreman. In that event, the second promotion/ Second

MACP is revision of Grade Pay from 4600 to 4800 which is on completion of 24 years of service, i.e., 03-05-2004. The next MACP being on completing 30 years of service, the same shall be from 03.05.2010 and the Grade Pay would be Rs.5400/- In other words, the applicant’s promotion/ACP Financial upgradation is as under:- a).Entry level: Tracer 03-05-1980 b).First promotion: 19-04-2003 as Asst. Foreman (intermediate promotions to be ignored in view of merger of these posts of DM II and DM I.

c) Second promotion/ACP : on completion of 24 years of service from 03-05-2004 enhancing his GP from Rs.4600 to Rs.4800/-

d) Third MACP w.e.f. 03-05-2010 enhancing his GP from Rs.4800 to Rs.5400/-.

16. The OA is allowed to the above extent. Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the Respondents are directed to refix the salary of the applicant, giving effect to the above direction of this Tribunal and pay the arrears arising therefrom within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.”

7. A perusal of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal made on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court makes it clear that the Tracer and Draughtsman carry same scale of pay. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the second respondent employee obtained promotions from

Tracer to Draughtsman and from Draughtsman to Chargeman is not sustainable one, thereby, the Central Administrative Tribunal passed the impugned order treating the second respondent got his first ACP/promotion, with effect from 19-04-2003 when he was promoted from Draughtsman I to Asst. Foreman and second promotion/ second MACP is revision of Grade Pay from 4600 to 4800 which is on completion of 24 years of service, i.e., 03-05-2004 and the next MACP on completion of 30 years of service, from 03.05.2010 and the Grade Pay would be Rs.5400/-. Such order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal need not be interfered with.

8. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai – 600 002.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. pri WP No. 22850 of 2023 And WMP No.22324 of 2023 09-10-2026