ASHLESHA MEHTA vs All India Radio on 30 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: (A) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition. (B)That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/declare the impugned action on the part of the respondents regarding not giving/extending the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation/MACP w.e.f. 2008 to the husband of the applicant and to held that the same is offset in view of MIB’s letter dtd. 25/2/1999 referred in the order dtd. 29/7/2022 of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and non-est in the eyes of law. (C) That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to give/extend the benefit of 2ndfinancial upgradation to the husband of the applicant from year 2008 or due to him with all consequential effect of the same, with arrears and 12% interest thereon by allowing the present petition with costs. (D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances o the case may be granted.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are as under: - 2.1 The applicant is the wife of Late Shri Mihir V. Mehta, who was appointed as a Transmission Executive (TREX) in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi with effect from 22.05.1989. He was serving under the establishment of All India Radio/Prasar Bharati and subsequently worked as a Programme Executive (PEX). 2.2 Under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s order dated 25.02.1999, the pay scale of certain categories of employees working in Prasar Bharati, was upgraded with effect from 01.01.1996. In the case of Shri Mihir Mehta, the scale of Rs. 5000–8000 was upgraded to Rs. 6500–10500. 2.3 Shri Mihir Mehta was granted the first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) with effect from 22.05.2001, in the pay scale of Rs. 7500–12500, corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 under the subsequent pay structure. P ANUKUMA

::3 ::

2.4 He was thereafter promoted as PEX on ad hoc basis in 2003. He continued to be a Central Government employee on deemed deputation to Prasar Bharati and was never absorbed into Prasar Bharati before his retirement. 2.5 The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a clarification dated 08.09.2014, after consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). A further clarification dated 31.01.2018 reiterated that the upgraded scales granted under the order dated 25.02.1999 to the specified categories of employees were to be treated as one upgradation against the three financial upgradations permissible under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). 2.6 By order dated 17.06.2021, the applicant’s husband’s first ACP was shown with effect from 22.05.2001, the second MACP was treated as offset against the upgraded pay scale granted under the Ministry’s order dated 25.02.1999, and the third MACP was granted in Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 with effect from 22.05.2011, subject to the conditions mentioned in the order. 2.7 Shri Mihir Mehta superannuated on 31.10.2021 and passed away on 25.11.2021. Subsequently, by order dated 29.07.2022, the respondents granted him the third financial upgradation under MACPS with effect from 22.05.2011, while maintaining the treatment of the upgraded pay scale dated 25.02.1999 as an upgradation offsetting the second MACP. 2.8 The applicant contends that the pay-scale revision under the order dated 25.02.1999 was a replacement or revision of the scale and not an independent financial upgradation under MACPS. She further relies on a proposal dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure A/3) and submits that the statutory and service conditions applicable to her husband did not justify denying him the second MACP. 2.9 The applicant issued a legal notice dated 08.11.2022 through her advocate seeking the admissible benefit. As the grievance was not P ANUKUMA

::4 ::

redressed, she approached this Tribunal by way of filing the present OA.

3. The submissions made on behalf of the applicant are as follows. 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in treating the upgraded pay scale granted under the Ministry’s order dated 25.02.1999 as one financial upgradation under MACPS is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the applicable service conditions. 3.2 It was contended that the order dated 25.02.1999 was given retrospective effect from 01.01.1996 and was a revision or replacement of the pay scale pursuant to the pay-revision exercise, rather than a financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP schemes. 3.3 Learned counsel submitted that Shri Mihir Mehta was appointed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and remained a Central Government employee on deemed deputation to Prasar Bharati. He was not absorbed into Prasar Bharati before retirement. Consequently, his entitlement to financial upgradation was required to be examined under the applicable Government of India instructions. 3.4 It was further submitted that the terms of the Ministry’s order dated 25.02.1999 contemplated the grant of upgraded scales to employees serving in Prasar Bharati, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The applicant argued that such conditional grant could not automatically be equated with a financial upgradation under MACPS without examining the applicable rules and the employee’s service status. 3.5 Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the proposal dated 19.10.2020, which, according to him, supported the contention that employees who continued on deemed deputation and were treated as Central Government employees could not be denied the benefit claimed merely on the basis of the earlier upgraded pay scale. P ANUKUMA

::5 ::

3.6 It was further submitted that the respondents had granted the third financial upgradation with effect from 22.05.2011 but had simultaneously denied the second MACP by treating the 1999 pay- scale benefit as an earlier upgradation. This resulted in an incorrect determination of her late husband’s entitlement.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the OA. 4.1 He submitted that the impugned decision was taken in accordance with the applicable instructions of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the clarifications issued after consultation with DoPT. 4.2 Learned counsel submitted that Shri Mihir Mehta was appointed as TREX with effect from 22.05.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 5000– 8000 under the Fifth Central Pay Commission. Under the Ministry’s order dated 25.02.1999, his pay scale was upgraded to Rs. 6500–10500 with effect from 01.01.1996. 4.3 It was contended that the upgraded pay scale was not merely a replacement of the existing pay scale consequent upon the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. Rather, it was a special upgradation granted pursuant to the demands of certain cadres of All India Radio and Doordarshan, subject to the terms of the Ministry’s order. 4.4 Learned counsel drew attention to the Ministry’s clarification dated 08.09.2014, which recorded that DoPT had opined that any upgradation availed during an employee’s career was to be counted against the three financial upgradations permissible under MACPS, since the benefits under MACPS were allowed in the Grade Pay hierarchy. 4.5 It was further submitted that the Ministry’s subsequent clarification dated 31.01.2018 reiterated that the upgraded scales granted to the specified categories of employees in the subordinate Engineering and Programme cadres of Prasar Bharati were to be treated as one upgradation against the three upgradations allowed P ANUKUMA

::6 ::

under MACPS. The said clarification was stated to have been endorsed by the Department of Expenditure. 4.6 Learned counsel submitted that, in view of the above instructions, the financial benefits received by Shri Mihir Mehta were correctly accounted for as follows: (a) first financial upgradation under ACPS with effect from 22.05.2001 in the Grade Pay corresponding to Rs. 4800; (b) the upgraded pay scale granted under the Ministry’s order dated 25.02.1999, treated as one upgradation for the purpose of MACPS, against which the second MACP was offset; and (c) third financial upgradation under MACPS in Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 with effect from 22.05.2011. 4.7 Learned counsel further submitted that the fact that Shri Mihir Mehta was on deemed deputation to Prasar Bharati did not nullify the Ministry’s clarification concerning the treatment of the upgraded pay scales. The respondents contended that they had implemented the instructions issued by the competent Ministry and had no independent authority to disregard those instructions. 4.8 It was also stated that, following a Limited Review Departmental Promotion Committee, Shri Mihir Mehta was promoted on a regular basis to the post of PEX with effect from 10.12.2008 by order dated 07.02.2023. The relevant service benefits had been considered in accordance with the applicable instructions. 4.9 Learned counsel therefore submitted that the applicant had failed to establish any illegality in the order dated 29.07.2022. Hence, the OA should be dismissed.

5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder and stated that the benefit of the First ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500–12,500 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800 w.e.f. 22.05.2001 was granted to her husband pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that vide order dated 29.07.2022, the respondents granted the benefit of Third MACP w.e.f. 22.05.2011 in Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400, while simultaneously deciding to adjust/set off the benefit of Second MACP, which is the subject matter of the present petition. P ANUKUMA

::7 ::

5.1 The applicant contends that the ACP Scheme was introduced in 1999 and the MACP Scheme in 2008. The pay scale granted to her husband w.e.f. 01.01.1996 under the order dated 25.02.1999 was subject to specific terms and conditions and cannot automatically be treated as a substitute for the benefit of Second MACP. 5.2 It is further submitted that the respondents could not have withdrawn or adjusted the benefit of Second MACP w.e.f. 2008 without affording the employee an opportunity of hearing.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record.

7. The following points arise for determination: 7.1 Whether the OA is within time. 7.2 Whether the respondents were right in treating the upgraded pay scale granted under the order dated 25.02.1999 as one financial upgradation, and in offsetting the second MACP against it. 7.3 Whether the fact that the applicant’s husband remained a Central Government employee on deemed deputation to Prasar Bharati, and was never absorbed, takes his case outside the clarifications dated 08.09.2014 and 31.01.2018.

8. We have considered the pleadings and the documents on record. The following facts are not in dispute: 8.1 Shri Mihir V. Mehta joined as TREX on 22.05.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 5000–8000. 8.2 By the order dated 25.02.1999, his scale was raised to Rs. 6500– 10500 with effect from 01.01.1996. He drew pay in that higher scale from then on. 8.3 He received the first financial upgradation under ACPS with effect from 22.05.2001, and the third financial upgradation under MACPS, in Grade Pay of Rs. 5400, with effect from 22.05.2011. 8.4 The second MACP was not granted. The orders dated 17.06.2021 and 29.07.2022 treat the scale given by the order dated 25.02.1999 P ANUKUMA

::8 ::

as the second upgradation. Both orders rely on the Ministry’s clarifications dated 08.09.2014 and 31.01.2018. 8.5 He retired on 31.10.2021 and passed away on 25.11.2021. The applicant is his widow.

9. We first take up the question whether the OA is within time. The order under challenge is dated 29.07.2022 and OA was filed within one year. The respondents have not raised any objection on limitation. The OA is within time. As the widow of the employee, the applicant is entitled to pursue any arrears that were due to him.

10. We now take up the main question: whether the scale given by the order dated 25.02.1999 was rightly counted as one financial upgradation. 10.1 The Ministry of I&B issued clarification dated 08.09.2014, after consulting DoPT, that any upgradation received during the career is to be counted against the three upgradation permissible under MACP after it came to the notice through CCA, M/o I&B that Prasar Bharti has passed resolution that the above mentioned upgradation will not count as one upgradation in the MACP scheme. The clarification dated 31.01.2018, endorsed by the Department of Expenditure, states specifically that the upgraded scales given by the order dated 25.02.1999 to the named categories in the subordinate Engineering and Programme cadres of Prasar Bharati are to be counted as one upgradation. 10.2 The applicant’s main argument is that the order dated 25.02.1999 only revised or replaced his scale under the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The record does not support this. Both sides agree that his scale under the Fifth Central Pay Commission was Rs. 5000–8000 The replacement scale had therefore already been given to him. The order dated 25.02.1999 then placed him in a higher scale, Rs. 6500–10500. That is not a replacement of his scale. It is a move to a higher scale. It was given only to certain cadres, on their demand, and not to all employees in the scale of Rs. 5000–8000. The applicant has not denied this in her rejoinder. P ANUKUMA

::9 ::

10.3 The applicant has not challenged the clarifications dated 08.09.2014 and 31.01.2018. Prayer (B) is directed only against the action of the respondents and the order dated 29.07.2022. As long as these clarifications stand, the respondents are bound to apply them. The orders dated 17.06.2021 and 29.07.2022 do no more than apply them to the applicant’s husband and we find no error in that. 10.4 The applicant relies on a proposal dated 19.10.2020 from DG, Doordarshan. The applicant has not shown that it was accepted, or that any order was issued on it and therefore it confers no right on the applicant. 10.5 The applicant also points out that the respondents granted the third MACP but denied the second. The third MACP was granted because the first financial upgradation and the 1999 upgradation were counted as the first and second. We do not find any inconsistency in this as this was as per clarification by the DoP&T.

11. Lastly, we need to examine the effect of the applicant’s husband having remained a Central Government employee on deemed deputation to Prasar Bharati The order dated 25.02.1999 itself gave the higher scale to employees serving in Prasar Bharati. Her husband received and drew that higher scale while holding the same status. The clarifications dated 10.07.2013, 08.09.2014 and 31.01.2018 deal with the same order and the same categories of employees. They make no distinction between employees who were absorbed and those who were not. The applicant has not pointed to any instruction that treats deemed deputationists differently for this purpose. Her husband’s status, therefore, does not take his case outside these clarifications especially in the light of DoPT order dated 10.07.2013 which specifically mentions that the order is applicable to employees on deemed deputation who are entitled to pay and benefits given to Central Govt. employees. It also mentions that the officials were also granted the upgraded scale of Rs. 7500-12000 vide Ministry of I&B order dated P ANUKUMA

::10 ::

25.02.1999 which is not admissible to an employee of the Central Government. 11.1 After examination of the issues as above, it is clear that:

(i) The order dated 25.02.1999 placed the applicant’s husband in a higher scale and was not a replacement of his Fifth Central Pay Commission scale and the respondents rightly counted it as one financial upgradation

(ii) His status as a Central Government employee on deemed deputation to Prasar Bharati does not take his case outside these clarifications.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the order dated 29.07.2022 does not call for interference.

13. OA is dismissed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are disposed of.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA