GHAN SHYAM SINGH vs M/o Defence on 28 October 2026

O R D E R

Per Rameshwar Vyas

The applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking 2nd financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 corresponding to revised pay of Rs. 9,300-34,800 with grade pay Rs. 4,200/- and the 3rd MACP in the pay of Rs. 9,300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs. 4,600/-.

Mehta

2- [GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. U.O.I.- 279 OF 2016]

2. The admitted facts of the case may be summarized as follows :- The applicant was appointed as a Chowkidar on 14.12.1972. After passing a departmental examination, he was appointed as a Valveman w.e.f. 30.11.1979 in the scale of Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-368-EB-8- 390-10-440. He was granted 2nd ACP w.e.f. 13.12.2000, pursuant to which, his pay was fixed at Rs. 4,500/- w.e.f. 13.12.2000 (Annex.R/4) pay fixation order. Thereafter, he was granted benefit of 3rd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008, as evident from the order of pay fixation (Annex.R/6).

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the post of Valveman does not fall in hierarchy in the cadre of Chowkidar, the same cannot be considered as a promotion. Therefore, he is entitled for 1st ACP after completion of twelve years service as Chowkidar i.e. in the year 1984. Since the applicant did not get any promotion in the next twelve years, he was entitled for 2nd ACP also, in the year 1996. As per the hierarchy of Valveman, an employee on seniority could be promoted to Pipe Fitter (Skilled) then to Pipe Fitter (HS-II) and from Pipe Fitter HS-II to Pipe Fitter HS-I and later on, to the post of MCM. No promotion was granted to the applicant however, the applicant was granted 2nd and 3rd MACP whereas he ought to have been granted 1st and 2nd ACP as also the 3rd financial upgradation/MACP, soon after completing thirty years of service, argued learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments :

(i) UOI & Ors. Vs. Har Govind Sharma, DBC Writ Petition No. 11709/2013 decided on 10.08.2015.

(ii) M.A.Jadhav Vs. U.O.I. & Ors., O.A. No. 849/2016 decided by CAT, Bangalore Bench on 27.11.2017.

Mehta

3- [GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. U.O.I.- 279 OF 2016]

(iii) U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney, in Writ Petition (C) No. 4131/2014 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 05.08.2014.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant was appointed as Chowkidar in 1972, and promoted as a Valveman on 30.11.1979. At the relevant time, the pay scale of Chowkidar was Rs. 210-4-226-EB-290 whereas, the pay scale of the Valveman was Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-368-EB-8-390-10-440. On completion of the requisite years of service and satisfying the conditions laid down under the Scheme, the applicant was granted the benefit of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 01.11.2000 vide Annex. R/4.

5. On 31.8.2008, the operation of the ACP scheme came to an end and the MACP Scheme was introduced by the Union w.e.f. 01.09.2008, to remove the stagnation. Thus, the applicant was extended the financial benefits of 3rd MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008. Consequently, the pay of the applicant was upgraded in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- vide PTO dated 26.03.2012 copies of which are annexed as Annxs. A/5 and A/6 respectively. On the date of retirement on 30.11.2010, the applicant got promotion as a Valveman, and was extended benefits of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP, therefore, the prayer of the applicant cannot be accepted. As per Annex. R/7 issued in 2014, i.e. for restructuring of cadre of the Artisan Staff whereunder, only those highly skilled workers/MCM, who were granted the pay scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000 (pre-revised) up to 31st December, 2005, were entitled for consideration for further financial upgradation, if due, in the next Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- in the hierarchy of the grade pays. The applicant, therefore, is not entitled to get the grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- and Rs. 4,600/-, as claimed by him.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, it emerges that the

Mehta

4- [GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. U.O.I.- 279 OF 2016]

applicant, being appointed as a Chowkidar in 1972,was promoted to the post of Valveman, as per this Tribunal’s order and was placed in the higher pay scale w.e.f. 16.10.1981, as is evident from his pay fixation proforma i.e. Annex. ‘A’ to Annex. R/1. It also reveals that the applicant never raised any grievance against extending him the benefits of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 13.12.2000. He did not raise any grievance against extending him the benefits under the 3rd financial upgradation/MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 until attaining the age of superannuation i.e. in the year 2010. He should have raised his claim soon after release of financial upgradations, but he has chosen to file the instant OA only in the year 2016.

The applicant has filed the present O.A. with the case that his placement as a Valveman from the post of Chowkidar, cannot be counted as a promotion for the purpose of grant of benefit of ACPs/MACP.

7. As we know, the scheme of Assured Career Progression (ACP) for the Central Government Civil Employees, was adopted on the recommendations of the V CPC with a view to resolve the problems of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotion avenues. In view of the object behind formulating the ACP Scheme, we find no reason in not counting the placement of the applicant as a Valveman from the post of Chowkidar since the post of Valveman carries higher pay than the pay of Chowkidar, as is evident from the pay fixation proforma Annex. A-I, filed at page 35 of the O.A.

8. After his placement as a Valveman the pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs. 260/- w.e.f. 16.10.1981 which is higher than the erstwhile pay of Rs. 222/- w.e.f. 01.11.1980. For the purpose of deciding the eligibility for grant of ACP, it makes no difference whether the placement of the applicant as Valveman was after passing any examination or not.

Mehta

5- [GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. U.O.I.- 279 OF 2016]

9. The judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Har Govind Sharma, in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 11709/2013 along with connected matters, relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, has been dealt with in Ramkaran Kumhar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3968/2008 decided on 31.05.2016] by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. Hon’ble High Court while dealing with the case of Har Govind Sharma (supra) observed that in absence of any provision under the rules, showing that appointments to the post of Postal Assistant/Shorting Assistant, are made by way of promotion, such appointment made by way of limited departmental competitive examination, has to be treated as appointment by that recruitment.

10. In the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dev Karan Mahala, in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 18488/2016, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that judgment of Har Govind Sharma (supra), is now diluted by way of subsequent decision of Division Bench judgment.

11. This Tribunal while deciding OA No. 231/2018 – Jhunta Ram Vs. UOI along with connected matters, on 19.12.2023,also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Ramkaran’s case (supra), wherein, the Court opined that, ‘where the rules specifically provides for promotion quota, may be to be filled in by way of Limited Department Competitive Examination, the promotions made by the method as aforesaid, has to be counted as promotion for the purpose of ACP Scheme.’

12. Since in the present matter, the applicant got promotion on the post of Valveman on account of promotion quota, the law as laid down by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ramkaran Kumhar, is squarely applicable whereas, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel

Mehta

6- [GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. U.O.I.- 279 OF 2016]

for the applicant in UOI Vs. Har Govind Sharma’s case, is not applicable.

13. The judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in UOI & Ors. Vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney, Writ Petition (C) No. 4131/2014 decided on 05.08.2014, is on different point, therefore, is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy.

14. The order of CAT, Bangalore Bench in M.A.Jadhav Vs. UOI & Ors.[Deptt. of Posts], (O.A. No. 849/2016 decided on 27.11.2017), being not in consonance with the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Ramkaran (supra),therefore, the promotion of the applicant to the post of Valveman, cannot be ignored for the purposes of granting MACP. Otherwise also, the applicant has not raised a plea of not counting the promotion of Valveman for the purpose of MACP in the pleadings of the O.A. For the first time, he raised this plea in the rejoinder filed by him. It is a well settled principle of law that a new case cannot be introduced by filing rejoinder. Rejoinder is filed only to explain the new facts pleaded in the reply.

15. In view of above, we find no merit in this O.A., hence, the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.A., if any, pending, is also disposed of.

(Hukum Singh Meena) (Rameshwar Vyas) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)

jrm

Mehta

Mehta