Hajari Lal vs M/o Defence on 3 November 2026

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

The present original application had been made against the impugned order dated 07.10.2017, whereby the Respondent No.4 had rejected the representations dated 27.07.2017 of the Applicants requesting to be granted the benefit of 3rd promotion/financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression (M.A.C.P.) Scheme on completion of 30 years of service on 21.06.2014 in G.P. of Rs.4600/-, i.e. the next higher G.P. in their promotional hierarchy.

Since both Applicants had a common cause of action arising due to the same impugned Order disallowing the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme and had prayed for the same relief, the present O.A. was filed jointly.

2. Based on pleadings of the parties, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.2 were initially appointed as Wireman (later on re- designated as Electrician-SK) on 21.06.1984 and 26.09.1983, respectively ; and were confirmed later on that post after successful completion of their probation period. Upon coming into effect of the Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme w.e.f. 09.08.1999, the Respondents allowed them the 1st financial upgradation w.e.f. 09.08.1999 itself, since they had completed 12 years of service before that date, on 21.06.1996 and 26.09.1995 respectively ; subsequently, they were promoted substantively to the post of Electrician (HS-II) w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and 01.03.2006 respectively. In due course, they were allowed the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under A.C.P. Scheme on completion of 24 years of service [in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.(5000-8000)/- which was equivalent to G.P. of Rs.4200/- under the VI-C.P.C.)] NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

w.e.f. 21.06.2008 and 26.09.2007 respectively ; while they got promoted substantively as Electrician(HS-I) from 01.11.2008 and 01.04.2008 respectively.

3. Vide the Department of Personnel & Training (D.oP.&T.), Government of India O.M. dated 19.05.2009, the M.A.C.P. Scheme had been notified to be applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2008 – as per which three financial upgradations were to be considered duly at 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service. The Applicants had completed 30 years of their service on 21.06.2014 and 29.09.2013 respectively ; so had claimed that accordingly they were entitled for the 3rd financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme. It was further claimed that the Grade Pay (G.P.) of Rs.4600/- being the next higher G.P. in the promotional hierarchy, the Applicants be allowed the same. However, the Respondents had referred to the clarification dated 31.12.2012 issued by Directorate-General of Personnel, Military Engineering Services, Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch (Respondent No.2) and denied the G.P. of Rs.4600/- on 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme. The Applicants had made representations on 27.07.2017 regarding grant of 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme, but the same had purportedly been rejected vide the impugned Letter dated 07.10.2017 of Respondent No.4.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicants had filed the present O.A. praying for the substantive relief inter alia – that the impugned letter dated 07.10.2017 along with the impugned Orders dated 30.06.14 and 31.12.2012 be quashed and set aside ; and that the Respondents be further directed to allow the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme in the G.P. of Rs.4600/- to the Applicants from the date they completed their 30 years of service, i.e. 21.06.2014 and 26.09.2013 respectively, with all consequential benefits. NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

5. In respect of the substantive reliefs claimed vide the present O.A., it was the case of the Applicants that M.A.C.P. Scheme envisages mere placement on personal basis in the immediate higher G.P. in the hierarchy as grant of financial upgradation on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service from the direct entry grade. Hence, it was claimed that the action of the Respondents denying 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme on the ground that the G.P. on such financial upgradation cannot be more than what can be allowed to an employee on his normal promotion was totally wrong and against the provisions of M.A.C.P. Scheme itself ; and thus deserved to be set aside.

In support, the Applicant had sought to rely upon the Judgment/Order dated 09.05.2016 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. S.K. Saraswat & Ors.in W.P. (C) 9266/2015, whereby while upholding the Order dated 27.02.2015 of the Hon’ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi in O.A. No.2639/2012, while considering similarly controversy it had inter alia been held that “The contention of the petitioners that financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P.S cannot be more than what can be allowed an employee on his regular promotion is clearly fallacious and wrong, for the M.A.C.P.S does not postulate reference to the pay scale payable on regular promotion.” It had been thus contended that in view of the aforesaid Judgment/Order dated 09.05.2016 (supra) of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the action of the Respondents denying Applicants the benefit of 3rd M.A.C.P. in the next higher G.P. of hierarchy was illegal and arbitrary.

6. Vide their reply, the Respondents had agreed only to the matters of facts on record, inter alia – that the Applicants were initially appointed on 21.06.1984 and 26.09.1983 respectively ; NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

and later confirmed after successful completion of their probation periods as Wireman (later on re-designated as Electrician SK) ; that upon coming into effect of the A.C.P. Scheme w.e.f. 09.08.1999, the Respondents had allowed them the 1st financial upgradation w.e.f. 09.08.1999 itself, while subsequently they were also promoted substantively as Electrician(HS-II). In due course, they were allowed the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under A.C.P. Scheme on completion of 24 years of service [in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.(5000-8000)/- which was equivalent to G.P. of Rs.4200/- under the (VI-C.P.C.)] w.e.f. 21.06.2008 and 26.09.2007, respectively ; while they got promoted substantively to the post of Electrician (HS-I) w.e.f. 01.11.2008 and 01.04.2008, respectively.

Also, it had been agreed that on completion of 30 years of regular service on 21.06.2014 and 29.09.2013 respectively, the Applicants had claimed to be allowed the 3rd financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme in the G.P. of Rs.4600/-, that being the next higher G.P. in their promotional hierarchy ; however, the same had not been allowed.

7. Per contra, the other contentions of the Applicants had been not admitted. In particular, in respect of the substantive relief claimed vide the present O.A., it had been submitted that the Applicants were not eligible for G.P. of Rs.4600/- as their G.P. on financial upgradation cannot be more than what they would get on normal promotion (i.e. Rs.4200/-), which they were already drawing. It was also sought to distinguish that the Judgment/Order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 09.05.2016 in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. S.K. Saraswat & Ors.(supra) was not applicable in the present case.

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

8. At the stage of arguments, the learned Counsels for the Applicants as well as the Respondents had sought to support their respective contentions by citing Orders of the various Benches of this Tribunal ; and Judgments/Orders of superior Courts.

Thus, the learned Counsel for the Applicants had presented the Order dated 10.01.2020 of the Hon’ble Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.301/2013 in the case of Bhartendu Gaur vs. Ministry of Defence – whereby it had been held that the relief sought by the Applicant therein was justified and accordingly the Respondents were directed to grant 3rd M.A.C.P. with the G.P. of Rs.4600/- after completion of 30 years of service on due date and make payment of pay and allowances and arrears due to the Applicants. Also, the Judgment/Order dated 20.10.2022 of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the related D.B. C.W.P. No.3840/2021 and other connected C.W.P.s had also been cited – whereby the Hon’ble High Court had stated its firm opinion that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal accepting the O.A.s were unimpeachable and in consonance with the M.A.C.P. Scheme, benefit whereof was rightfully sought and thus the impugned orders did not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity whatsoever warranting interference of the Hon’ble High Court. Further, the Order dated 06.09.2023 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the related S.L.P. No.30419/2023 had also been presented – whereby the S.L.P. had been dismissed, while stating that no infirmity was seen in the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court in upholding the relief granted by the C.A.T. in favour of the Respondents-employees ; however, the question of law, if any, was left open. Learned Counsel for the Applicants had also sought to rely upon the Order dated 30.04.2025 of Hon’ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal (Nainital Circuit sitting) in O.A. No.947/2022 with O.A. No.948/2022 – whereby it had been held that the Applicants were entitled for grant of next G.P. and not NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

3% increment in the existing G.P. ; and accordingly both the aforesaid O.A.s were allowed with the directions to the Respondents to grant 3rd M.A.C.P. benefit in the Pay Scale of Rs.(9300-34800)/- with G.P. of Rs.4600/- to the Applicants with effect from their respective due dates, along with all consequential benefits.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had relied upon the judgment and order dated 27.03.2018 in the C.A. No.3321/2008 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Smt. Mukti Singha (along with other C.A. Nos.3324-3327 of 2018 & C.A. Nos.3328-3329 of 2018) whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had decided that the view taken by the High Court that the Respondents are entitled to G.P. higher than what they may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy cannot be sustained ; that the High Court erred in distinguishing the judgment on the ground that the same related to A.C.P. Scheme ; and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find any reason to exclude the principle laid down therein for interpretation of M.A.C.P.

9. Further, the learned counsel for the Respondents had laid particular emphasis on the recent Judgment/Order dated 23.07.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on this very subject, in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal Verma [2026 INSC 739] that had considered the involved question of law, as had previously been left open, at length including several precedent court cases – and had thereafter proceeded to settle the said question of law. It had been also pointed out that in course of the Judgment/Order dated 23.07.2026 (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside similar Orders of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur (dated 06.01.2025 in D.B. C.W.P. No.16939/2024) and the Orders of this Tribunal/Bench (dated 11.07.2014 in O.A. No.468/2011 and NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

dated 11.07.2024 in O.A. No.92/2015), to the extent that they directed the grant of M.A.C.P. financial upgradation to G.P.s of Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- to the Respondents therein ; and had restored and confirmed the Speaking Order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Kota, rejecting as such the claims of the Respondents for financial upgradation to higher G.P.s under M.A.C.P. Scheme.

Upon reference the said Judgment/Order dated 23.07.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal Verma (supra) was found to be rendered in the case of employee of Railway Department, wherein also the M.A.C.P. Scheme was adopted/followed ; and after discussion of the related issues at length, various significant questions of law related to grant of financial upgradations under the M.A.C.P. Scheme had been settled – inter alia, the particular question of whether the financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme can or cannot be to a higher G.P. to that allowed on normal promotion. Its relevant parts in the context of the present O.A. were shown to be as hereafter –

“40. … … We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. A promotion does not cease to be promotion merely because the promotee’s G.P. does not change. The characteristic elements of a promotion are the formal process by which it is granted, the enhanced responsibilities of the higher post, and the structural hierarchy within which it is situated. … … “48. … … The principles governing the effect of executive interpretations of government service schemes are well established. A government service scheme, such as the M.A.C.P.S, is an executive instrument. Its interpretation by the administering authority particularly where that interpretation follows consultation with the nodal department (DoPT in case of the M.A.C.P.S) is entitled to due consideration. This Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), in Paragraph 30, held in explicit terms that “Departmental clarifications issued by DoPT are integral to the Scheme and binding on all authorities.” This is not a statement of mere administrative courtesy. It reflects the well-established principle that an NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

executive scheme created by the Government for its own employees is to be administered as the Government intends, and that executive interpretations of such schemes, when issued by the competent authority in consultation with the nodal department, are binding on service tribunals, subordinate courts, and all administrative authorities.” … …

50. … … It lays down a rule of general application : M.A.C.P.S upgradation cannot be to a G.P. higher than that available on normal production in the hierarchy. This rule follows naturally from the structure of the M.A.C.P.S : if the M.A.C.P.S is intended to provide financial progression as a substitute for promotional advancement, it cannot be used to provide financial levels that would exceed what the employee could have achieved through the highest actual promotion available to him. Where no promotional post in the cadre carries G.P. above Rs.4200, granting M.A.C.P. at G.P. Rs.4600 or Rs.4800 would not be a substitute for a promotion that the employee missed ; it would be a windfall that exceeds the financial ceiling of the cadre altogether. … …

52. … … Mohanan Nair also confirmed, and this is of equal importance for the present case, that “departmental clarifications issued by DOPT are integral to the Scheme and binding on all authorities.” … …

54. The Respondent and the courts below have sought to read Mukti Singha (supra) narrowly, as a decision that corrected only the High Court's error of applying ACP principles to an M.A.C.P. matter, without any broader ratio. That reading is not consonant with the terms of the judgment. The holding in Paragraph 5 that "the view taken by the High Court that the Respondents are entitled to G.P. higher than what they may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy cannot be sustained" is stated as a proposition of general application to the M.A.C.P.S. It is not confined to cases where the High Court has committed the specific error of applying ACP principles. This Court explicitly said it found "no reason to exclude the principle laid down therein for interpretation of M.A.C.P.." The principle that an employee cannot receive G.P. higher than what he may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy applies to the M.A.C.P.S as much as to the A.C.P. Scheme.

55. In Birendra Kujur (supra), this Court reiterated the same principle, holding that the Respondents could not be granted G.P. higher than what they may receive on actual promotion under applicable cadre rules. This decision reinforces the conclusion reached on the basis of Mukti Singha (supra). Both decisions, taken together, establish that the principle NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

against exceeding the promotional hierarchy's G.P. ceiling is an integral feature of the M.A.C.P.S, not merely a feature of the A.C.P. Scheme.

56. On the effect of SLP dismissals. In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another8, a Constitution Bench of this Court held in Paragraph 44: "If the order refusing leave to appeal is a nonspeaking order, i.e., does not assign any reasons, then it will not be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and would not attract the doctrine of merger."

57. The order dated 07.11.2023 dismissing SLP(C) No.20906/2019 and connected matters is not merely a non-speaking order it goes further and expressly records that "the question of law, if any, is left open to be decided in an appropriate case." This self-limiting language places it beyond doubt that the dismissal was not a declaration of law and that the question was specifically preserved for a future case. The present appeal is the appropriate case in which the question is resolved. It is significant that this Court, at the first hearing on 01.12.2025, itself noted that the question of law requires to be settled, recognising that the 07.11.2023 order had left it open. The Jodhpur Bench's and the Jaipur Bench's reliance on those SLP dismissals as if they embodied a binding determination of the legal position is therefore erroneous, as it is inconsistent with the express terms of those orders and with the principle in Kunhayammed (supra). … …

65. This Court records its conclusions on the question formulated above as follows :

(i) … …

(ii) It is further recorded that the promotions so earned were not, in substance, financially inconsequential merely because G.P. 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 M.A.C.P.S and is not entitled to further financial upgradation under the Scheme on that ground.

(iii) … …

(iv) RBE No.76/2011 and RBE No.142/2012, as DoPT-consulted binding executive clarifications of the M.A.C.P.S, correctly apply Paragraph 8 to the Guard cadre and correctly reflect the position that M.A.C.P. upgradation cannot exceed the G.P. ceiling of the NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

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 G.P. higher than what he may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy applies to the M.A.C.P.S 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 S.L.P.(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 M.A.C.P.S 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 M.A.C.P. purposes, is incorrect and is, by this judgment, set aside.

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 M.A.C.P. financial upgradations at G.P. Rs.4600 and G.P. 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 M.A.C.P. claim on the basis of Paragraph 8 of the M.A.C.P.S and RBE No.142/2012, is restored and confirmed. … …

70. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 in CWP No.9803/2023 and judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15303/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench are set aside. The orders passed by the Competent Authority withdrawing/denying the M.A.C.P. claims are restored and confirmed.” NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

10. Hence, it is found that the matter in respect of the relief claimed by the Applicants vide the present O.A. was no more res integra and the question of law – of whether the financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme can or cannot be allowed to a higher G.P. than what was allowed on normal promotion – had been finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide the Judgment/Order dated 23.07.2026 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal Verma (supra). The ratio thereby was that M.A.C.P. upgradation cannot exceed the G.P. ceiling of the promotional hierarchy ; and specifically the orders of the Tribunal and High Courts to the extent they directed the grant of M.A.C.P. financial upgradations to G.P. exceeding the G.P. ceiling of the promotional hierarchy were set aside. Thus, the cases cited by the Applicants in support of their claim would also not hold in light of the aforesaid ratio of the law settled as such.

11. We rely on the authority of the aforesaid Judgment/Order dated 23.07.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal Verma (supra) to decide the present O.A. accordingly ; specifically that the financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme cannot be to a higher G.P. than what was allowed on normal promotion.

12. Accordingly, the present O.A. does not succeed and is dismissed hereby. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of in accordance. No order as to costs.

(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

kumawat NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT