only Para 8 of the MACP schme is ordained to count the Promotions earned in the post

carrying the same grade pay of the promotional hierarchy as a financial up gradation
under the MACP schme and not Para 8.1 of the Scheme which is corollary to rule 8
and meant only for maintaining that the grade pays of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 and Rs. 5400
in PB-3 are to be separate grade pays for the schme and relevant only to a situation
where there is a movement to Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-3 from the grade pay of Rs.
5400 in PB-2. As both the grade pays can also be reached as pay scale or pay scale
revision the mere mentioning of them as separate grade pays itself would not generate
any financial up gradation unless granted through promotion or up gradation under the
ACP schme or MACP Schme .That being the case , para 8.1 can’t be applied to the
movement from GP of Rs 4800 in PB2 to GP of Rs 5400 in PB2 . This position has been
legally well settled. The Hon High court of Madras in the case of Union of India Vs.
S.Balakrishnan in W.P.No.11535/ -2014 has relied upon the decisions in the case of UOI
vs Rajpal& Another in OA NO 1038/2010 of the Hon CAT, Chandigarh and in CMP NO
19387/2011 of the Hon High court of Punjab& Haryana HC] that clause 8(1) should be
treated as a corollary to para 8 and para 8(1) would be applicable only to those
departments which provide for promotion to the post carrying the same grade pay. .The
Hon High court of kerala vide its recent decision dated 23.10.2019 in the case of
K.Sudheesh Kumar ,Assistant director vs UOI in OP[CAT]171/19 has followed this
judgment of the Madras High Court and has held that the Tribunal has misconstrued
the MACP Scheme , failed to notice clause 8 in its entirety and noticed para 8.1 in
isolation.

The MACP Schme as contained under OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) dated 19th May,
2009 in para 1 [Annexure-I] provide only for granting the financial up gradation in the
grade pay hierarchy and counting three financial up gradations under the MACPS, from
the direct entry grade..Notably the words ‘under the MACPS ” used therein though
indicate that only those financial up gradations granted under the MACP scheme are
countable for the scheme the provisions of para 8 and Illustration C of para 28 of the
scheme provide that the functional promotions or Financial up gradation granted
under the ACP schme are also countable. Thus the conjoint reading of relevant
provisions of the scheme signify that the financial up gradations countable for the
scheme are only functional promotions or up gradations granted under the schmes of
ACP/MACP and no other financial benefit even if it is to the next grade pay. On this
count , the movement to pay scale of Rs 9300-34800 in PB2 being not fits into any of
these 3categories, can’t be counted by applying para 8.1 of the schme.

Government Resolution No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29.8.2008 which is only a policy decision

of the Cabinet of Ministers has accepted in clause X(e) of the VI CPC to grant the Grade
pay of Rs. 5,400 /- in PB-2 . The resolution though used the term ‘non functional basis”
it does not provide for the manner of granting it. However the statutory CCS RP
Rules.,2008 issued simultaneously leave no room for any interpretation and
unambiguously provide that this grade pay shall be given as part of the revised/up
graded pay scale to be granted automatically after 4 years service in the post. under
entry No 9 of the CCS RP rules, 2008 , part C-section II applicable to Finance Ministry,the
post of Superintendent has been split into two grades c ie entry grade with the revised
pay scale of Rs 7500-12000 with GP of Rs 4800 in PB2 and another grade where the
Superintendent has completed 4 years of service in the post with the pay scale of Rs
8000-13500 with GP of Rs 5400 in PB2 and both of them are to be revised pay scales
regardless of whether Functional or non functional .The RP rules being statutory in
nature issued under article 309 &148[5]of the constitution, have statutory force to ride
over any executive instructions issued in contravention there to. Thus the CBEC[CBIC
now] Circular F No 26017/98/2008-Ad.IIA dated 21.11.2008,11.2.2009 & 16.09.2009
issued to clarify/instruct that the GP of Rs 5400[ with Corresponding pay scale of Rs
8000-13500] shall be granted as a separate non functional up gradation are in direct
conflict with the resolution and theCCS RP rules,2008 . It is well settled that the
executive instructions cannot be taken away the vested right granted under the
statutory rules .The Hon High Court of Madras in the case of M.Subramaniam vs UOI
in WPNo13225/2010,dated 6.09.2010 [Annexure A24] which has been upheld by the
Hon Supreme Court vide its decision on 10.10,2017 in CA.No 8883/2011[SLP NO
15627/2011] ,has held that executive decision made without amending the CCS [ RP]
Rules,2008 is not valid .The Hon supreme court has held in the case of Director General
of posts VS B.Ravindran &others 1997[1] SCC 641 that the rights conferred by statutory
rules cannot be taken away by executive instructions /clarificatory orders. the Hon
High court of Punjab and Haryana has held in the cases of Subhash chandar&others vs
stateof Haryana in CWPNo 18438/2010 dated 03.11.2012 and Satyapal&others vs
stateof Haryana &others in CWP No 19161/2011 dated21.12.2012 that the pay rules
framed under article 309 of the constitution of India have overriding effect on the
administrative instructions . The same High Court has held in the case of Sanjogita joshi
and others vs Nareshkumar and others in LPA No 1376of 2011 dated 08.08.2011 that
the departmental instructions and circular cannot be issued in contravention of the
statutory rules.

As per Para 11 of the MACP schme , no past cases shall be reopened and as per FAQ 12
, ACP granted prior to 1.9.2008 shall not be reviewed . Therefore , re counting the Gp
of Rs 5400 inPB2 granted as on 1.1.2006 which was ignored while granting the 2nd
financial up gradation under the ACP schme as an 03.07.2006 , as the second financial
up gradation under the MACP schme and the 2nd ACP granted as on 03.07.2206 as the
3 rd financial up gradation under the MACP schme ,by applying para8.1 is clearly
amounting to re opening of the past cases under ACP and applying the MACP schme
retrospectively to the detriment and highly arbitrary .The Hon High Court of Karnataka
in the case of Sri BD Kadam Vs. UOI dated 5.6.2017, in WP Nos.24894-24908/2016 (S-
CAT) the Hon High court of Madras in the cases of 7 Chief Engineers Vs s.Ranjit Samuel
in WP No -33946/2014 dated 14.2.2017] in the case of UOI Vs. C Selvaraj&Others,in
WPNO 5863/2013 dated 10.11.2014 the Hon High court of Delhi in the case of Delhi
Urban shelters improvement Vs. Shashi Malik & Others, under LPA 405/2016 &
409/2016 dated 20.7.2016 ,the Hon High court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of UOI
& Others vs. Raj Pal & Others in WP 19387/2011 (OXA) dated 19.10.2011 has held that
past cases under the ACP Schme cannot be reopened and MACP schme cant be operated
retrospectively to the detriment.
The applicant was in the pre revised scale 7500-12000 with just one ACP and would
have directly reached the scale of the promotional post of GP of 5400 in PB3 as the
second ACP and the grade pay of rs 6600 as the 3rd Macp in the normal course itself
even without this non-functional scale of Rs. 8000-13500 with GP of Rs. 5400 in PB2.
Thus The arbitrary view that the GP of Rs. 5400 in PB2. is to be as a financial up
gradations countable for MACP is amounting to denial of a benefit already accrued.

pay fixation was done wrongly

in the period prior to 1.1.2006, the superintendent’s normal pay scale was Rs 7500-
12000 and the pay scale of those superintendents who have got the second financial up
gradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of the next hierarchy ie Assistant
Commissioner, was Rs 8000-13500. The replacement scales applicable from 1.1.2006
to all cases are provided under Part A -First Schedule of the RP Rules 2008 .Therefore
,if determined strictly as per Part A -First Schedule , the replacement scale of the
superintendent who was in the pre revised scale of Rs 7500-1200 [s-14] is to be Rs
9300-34800 in PB2 with GP of Rs 4800 and the replacement scale to the pre-revised
scale of Rs 8000-13500 s-15 which the superintendents got as the second ACP is to be
Rs 9300-34800 in PB2 with GP of Rs 5400.However,CBEC circular F No 23011/29/2010-
Ad.IIA dated 20.05.2011 issued by citing the decision of the Hon CAT , Madras bench in
the case of . S. Ramachandran, Superintendent of Central Excise (Retd) Vs. Union of
India& others in OA No .821,930,931 and 1098 of 2010 has clarified that the
replacement pay scale of those Superintendents who have got the pre revised pay scale
of Rs 8000-13500 as second financial up gradation under the ACP Schme in the period
prior to 1.1.2006 shall be Rs 15600-39100 with GP of Rs 5400 in PB3 and such officers
are entitled for the GP of Rs 6600 with corresponding pay scale as the 3rd financial up
gradation under the MACP scheme. Quite clearly ,in those cases, the revised pay scale of
the promotional post [ Asst Commr] has been accepted as the replacement scale. If the
same principle is adopted to the case of superintendents who have completed 4 years
of service prior to 1.1.2006 ,the replacement scale should be the pay scale of the up
graded grade/post of Rs 8000-13500 with GP of Rs 5400 in PB2 .
Even otherwise, the creation of a new grade within the same post and upward revision
of related pay scale without any change in the duties and responsibilities in the case
superintendents who have completed 4 years of service constitutes an up gradation of
post regardless of that only a particular grade in the post has been up graded. As
indicated in Note 2A of rule 7 of the RP Rules,2008 ,all the categories shown under parts
B &C of the RP Rules,2008 are up graded posts. it is also indicated under OM .F no
1/1/2008-IC [A] dated 13.09.2008 of the Dept of Expenditure ,Ministry of Finance
clarification no 6 that even the grade wise up gradation is amounting to up gradation
of post. As indicated under OM .F No 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.10.2008 of the dept of
Expenditure ,Finance Ministry , the term up graded post used in the RP rules2008 means
to refer all the cases where the pay scales have been up graded as shown in Part A or B
or C of the First schedule to the RP Rules ,2008. The Hon Supreme court in the case of
BSNL vs R Santhakumari Velusamy &others in CA No 5286-5287 of 2005 and also The
Hon High court of Madras in WPNO 9162/2013 in the case of Kamini vs the state of
Tamil nadu by relying up on the decision of the Hon Supreme court in the case of
Tirumal vs Ananda sivakumar in CA Nos 10660-10662 of2013 as reported in 2014[ 16]
scc 593 have clearly laid down that revision of pay scale without any change in the
duties and responsibilities constitutes an up gradation of post .therefore , the
replacement pay in this case shall be fixed not by applying the Table in Annex – I but
as per note 2A&B of rule7{1] and in the manner under illustration 4A. clarifications
under Para II of OM F. NO.1/1/2008-IC dated 30.9.2008 and OM .FNo 1/1/2008-IC
dated 13.10.2008, clarifications under OM dated 13.09. 2008, OM .Fno 7/7/2008-C.S.I
[A] dated 03.01.2014 all confirm this position. More over as held by the Hon Delhi
High court in the case of Hariram and also in other cases the superintendent who have
completed 4 years service prior to 1.1.2006 deemed to have earned the grade pay of rs
5400 in the period prior to 1.1.2006 and no question of fixing the grade pay of rs 4800
as on 1.1.2006 as the replacment grade pay. . In the case of the superintendents who
have completed 4 years service,the revised grade pay shall be given as the replacement
scale itself by applying Note 2A, accordingly the replacement pay shall be fixed with
reference to existing basic pay by adding the up graded GP. However in this case ,the
pay fixation was done wrongly as the replacement scale was fixed as 9300-34800in PB2
with GP of Rs 4800 and then the Pay scale of Rs 9300-34800in PB2 with GP of Rs 5400
in PB2 was granted as a separate financial up gradation , on the very same date of
1.1.2006. in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner. If the pay was correctly fixed as per
the RP rules the question of granting the same benefit as a separate financial up
gradation would not have arisen
As per Para 5 of the MACP schme ,Promotions earned/up gradation granted under the
ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to
merger of pay scales/up gradations of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission
shall be ignored for the purpose of granting up gradations under Modified ACPS. In the
case of superintendents who completed 4 years in the pay scale of Rs 7500-12000 ,the
first ACP was granted while in the post of inspector [Rs 5500-9000] to the pay scale of
Rs6500-10500 which was later made into the pay scale of the inspector in the year
2004.and merged with scales of pre revised scales viz Rs 5000-8000,5500-9000 by the
6th CPC [as being the Inspector’s pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006]. The first and this
first ACP granted is ignorable in terms of para 5 of annexure I of the MACP ,the pay scale
of Rs. 7500-12000 was granted consequent to promotion. However in the case of
superintendents who have completed 4 years service prior to 1,1 2006 this pay scale
was subsumed in the up graded pay scale of Rs 8000-13500 from 1.1.2006. hence this
also also ignorable by applying para 5. Thus even by counting up graded scale of 8000-
13500 , the financial up gradations remain to be counted for MACP are only the scale
of 8000-13500 and the 2nd ACP granted to the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with GP
of Rs. 5400 in PB3 with effect from 3.07.2006 and there was not mot more than two
financial up gradations in the period prior to 3.07.2012 . Hence the 3rd up gradation on
completion of 30 years as on 3.07.2012 is certainly grantable
the case of Shri R. Chandrasekaran
As regards the case of Shri R. Chandrasekaran Vs. UOI & Ors in Writ Petition No. 19024
of 2014 ,The Hon High court of Madras has directed the Department of Personnel,
Public Grievances to consider the issue in extenso in the light of the provisions of MACP
Schemen . However The Dopt has not brought out any reasoning except quoting para
8.1 of the schme which is not applicable to the case for the reason stated as above
Hence the clarification issued by the Dopt is not in accordance with the provisions of the
MACP Schme. More over ,the decision of the Hon High Court of Madras in WP No. 19024
of 2014 dated 08.12.2014 the case has not attained finality and the case of the
contempt filed is still pending.
Decisions held that this is not countable
the Hon’ble High court of Delhi vide its decision dated 20.12.2017 in the case of Hariram and
others vs Registrar General of Delhi in WP No [C] 9357/2016, has relied up on the decisions of
the same high court in the case of UOI Vs VK Sharma in WP No [C] 109/2016 where in it has
been held that the grade pay was earned by virtue of the revision of pay is not countable and
in the case of Suresh Chand Garg vs Chief secretary, Govt of NCT in WP No [C]5789/2015
where in it has been held the question of financial up gradation cannot examined with
reference to pay scale and held that the grant of the grade pay of rs 54oo is automatic after
completion of 4 years and being not to be a promotion or placement in selection grade cannot
be considered as a financial up gradation under MACP. THISDECISION ISFOOLOWED BY THE
HON CAT, ERNA CULAM BENCH vice its decision dated 15.11.2018 IN THECASE OF K.RAVI vs
minidtry of personnel and public grievance in OA NO 180/00068/2015
the Hon’ble CAT, Delhi vide its decision dated 17.12.2014 in the case of M/s. Shairakhan Vs. The
Planning Commission in OA No.803/2013, the Hon’ble High court of Delhi vide its decision dated
28.08.2015 in the case of Narinder singh & others VS university of Delhi in WP No
5096/2012&5099/2012 and the Hon’ble CAT, Chandigarh in the case of CAT Vs. UOI in OA No.770-HP-
2011 dated 13.10.2011and in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. UOI in OA No.1122/PB/2013 dated -27.04.2017
the Hon High Court of Bombay in the case of the Association on the subordinate service of
engineers vs the state of Maharastra in WP No 2605/2017 dated 06.02.2019 and also the
Cat,Allahabad in RA NO 41/2011 dated 06.09.2012 in OA NO 849/2006 held that pay scale/revision
of pay scale cannot be counted as a separate financial up gradation.
.
CLAIM IS NOT FOR PROMOTIONAL HIEREACHY
. Grade pay of Rs 6600 is the immediate next to the grade pay of Rs 5400 in PB3 in the hierarchy of
grade pay. If the pay scale with grade pay of Rs 5400 in PB2 granted after completion of 4 years is
not counted then the Grade pay applicable as the 3rd financial up gradation in the hierarchy of the
grade pay under the Macp schme would be Rs 6600. For this reason, all the judgments cited which
are on the issue of granting Macp benefit in the promotion hierarchy are not relevant to the issue..
CIRCUARS /cat decisions
In the case cited by the revenue dept in the subject circularno -------- DATED------ , the fact
remains that the applicants got the Pre revised pay scale of 8000-275-13500[ considered as
equivalent to GP of 5400in PB2] which happened to be the pay scale of a promotional post of
Assistant commissioner, much before the implementation of the 6th pay commission[ which
came into effect from 1.1.2006] as second financial up gradation by means of the second ACP.
For that reason, the Hon Tribunal considered that in such cases, the third financial up gradation
would fall in the same grade pay of 5400 in PB3 by applying para 8.1 of the MACP Scheme.
The Tribunal has also held that financial up gradation under MACP must be granted only to the
next grade pay and GP of Rs 5400 in PB2 and GP of Rs 5400 in PB3 are to be separate grade
pays for the MACP Schme.

However, in my case the GP of Rs 5400 in PB2 was granted as a normal pay scale in
accordance with the RP Rules ,2008 since I already completed 4 years.
Thus , fact wise this case is different from my case.
Even otherwise, this cited decision of the Hon Tribunal is apparently erroneous for the
following reasons
In the subject case , the applicants were granted the pre revised pay scale of the Assistant
commissioner ie 8000-275-13500 as the second financial up gradation through ACP
scheme , the corresponding GP to that scale after 1.1.2006 is GP of 5400 in PB3 and not
GP of 5400 in PB2 as incorrectly found out by the Hon. Tribunal.CBEC Circular F No A
23011/29/2010 Ad II A dated 20.05.2011 specifically clarified this position. Therefore GP of
Rs 6600 was correctly granted to them as the next GP, under the MACP schme.
The Hon Tribunal has incorrectly interpreted the provisions of para 8.1 of the MACP
schme.Para 8.1 simply says that GP of Rs 5400 inPB2 and GP of Rs 5400 inPB3 are to be
separate grade pays for the schme and the object of this sub para has been clearly clarified
in para 16 of the FAQ Issued by the DOPM.

CBIC vide its circular F No A 23011/ 125/2016-Ad IIA/ dated 9.10.2019 has communicated
copy of order dated 12.05.2019 of the Hon CAT ,Ernakulam bench in the case of Dileep
kumar vs UOI in OA No 180/912/2016 which is nothing but the reiteration of the order of
the Hon CAT in the case of The common order dated 06.04.2017 of the Hon’ble CAT,
Ernakulam Bench in OAs No. 05/2016, 89/2016, 91/2016, 7 | P a g e 176/2016, 262/2016,
488/2016, 651/2016, 725/2016 and 726/2016
CBIC issued circular F No A 23011/ 93/2018-Ad IIA/ dated 15.01.2019 by referring to its
circulars dated 4.06.2014 and 20.06.2016 and direction of the Hon High court of Madras
dated8.12.2014 in WP NO 19024/2014 by stressing that the non functional GP of rs 5400
in PB2 needed to be counted for the MACP Schme and cited the decisions of the Hon CAT
Ernakulam bench [ communicated vide circular fno23011/96//2016 Ad IIA/ dated
25.05.2018] Hon CAT Ahmedabad bench [ communicated vide circular fno23011/58/2017
Ad IIA/ dated 01.11..2018]
In the light of the foregoing, letter dated 4th June, 2014 and letter F.No.A-23011/29/2010-
Ad.IIA dated 4th June, 2014of theCBIC which merely cited the usual reason that para 8.1
of the schme provided for offsetting of the pay scale with Grade pay of 5400in PB2 are to
be devoid of merit and not in accordance with the scheme
CBIC vide its letter F.No.A-23011/58/2017- Ad.IIA dated 1st November, 2018 has circulated
the Order dated 19.06.2018 of the Hon’ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench has dismissed OA No.
180/00123/2017, OA No. 180/00404/2017, OA No. 180/00983/2016 and OA No.
180/00405/2017 ]
cbec vide --------circulated the Order dated The Hon’ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench ------in
OA Nos 180/00123/2017&Others in the case of KS Ravi.VS CBIC& others is nothing but
the reiteration of the order of the Hon CAT of the same bench in similar cases .
Board’s letter F.No.A-23011/96/2016-Ad.IIA dated 25th May, 2018

The Hon Tribunal has interpreted the provisions of para 8.1 by reading it in isolation ,
has omitted to note that it is corollary to rule 8 and not independent, and incorrectly
applied it to the movement of rs 9300-34800 in PB2.
DOPT order dated 02.05.2016 except merely citing para 8.1 of MACP schme , has not
brought out any reason for counting GP Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 as one financial up gradation
for the purpose of MACP Scheme
Clarification issued vide circular dated 26.07.2010 does not reflect this position under para
8.1 of the schme.
CAT ERNAKUMAM ORDER DATED 06.04.2017
The Tribunal has also erred in deciding what constitutes a financial up gradation for the
purpose of the MACP Schme . It has held that any change in Pay Band or Grade Pay, or
grant of NFU is to be a financial up gradation irrespective of the manner in which it is
granted .. The Hon Tribunal has not appreciated that the DOP&T, despite being the nodal
Ministry cannot redefine the schme ambiguously and issue clarification that does not fall
within the parameters of the schme as contained in OM No 35034/3/2008/Estt-D
dated19.05.2009 and FAQ No. 16 is just the reiteration of para 8.1 of the MACP Scheme
which covers only the movement from Rs. 9300- 34800 in PB2 to Rs. 15600-39000/in PB-
3 and not the movement Rs. 9300- 34800 in PB2 .
The common order dated 06.04.2017 of the Hon’ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench in OAs No.
05/2016, 89/2016, 91/2016, 7 | P a g e 176/2016, 262/2016, 488/2016, 651/2016, 725/2016
and 726/2016 holding that Non-Functional Grade Pay Granted to Superintendent on
completion of 4 years is countable as an up gradation under the MACP Scheme id highly
misconstrued and erroneous.
The issue before the Hon Tribunal to decide is only whether the Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- in PB-
2 is to be considered as a financial up gradation or not. However ,the Hon Tribunal has
examined only the status of the movement from Rs. 9300- 34800 in PB2 to Rs. 15600-
39000/in PB-3 with reference to para 8.1of the MACP Schme, found that a mere pay band
change even without change in the grade pay to result a financial benefit/up gradation
and without rhyme or reason has made a conclusion on the status of the scale of Rs.
9300- 34800 in PB2 which it never examined on merit..

The Tribunal has made a view that un accounting the NFU in the financial hierarchy without
considering that para 8.1 does not cover the movement to gb 5400 in pb2 and the
placement to Gp 5400 in PB2 is done under the provisions of the RP rules, 2008 and
treating this revision of pay scale applicable in the normal course as NFU and counting it for
MACP schme, is highly arbitrary discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights
granted under the constitution .The hon tribunal has not considered that the
superintendents who have completed 4 years have the right for a revised l pay scale and
would have got the grade pay of rs 5400 in PB2 even without this NFU grantable in a
different course
CAT, AHMEDA BAD
The Hon’ble CAT, Ahmedabad vide common Order dated 22.09.2017 has decided the cases
in favour of the Govt and dismissed a number of OAs. The decision of the Ahmedabad
Bench of the Hon’ble CAT in OA No:581-583/2016, OA No:653-656/2016 and in OA
No:133/2017 has been delivered by entirely relying on its own decision in the case of
Bajrangdal Vs. UOI [CMA No.247/2017] which heldthat the same matter is pending before
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Mohanan Nair and other SLPs;that the
decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajpal has been stayed
by the Hon’ble Apex Court;that it follows the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the case of ofUOI vs All India CGHS Employees Association & Ors;that there are
conflicting High Court Decisions;that any decision on the applications will not serve any
purpose.
, The Hon’ble CAT has arrived these conclusions by taking into consideration the following
decisions .
SLP No.22181/2014 in the case of UOI Vs. Reeta Devi
SLP No.23333/2014 in the case of UOI Vs. Baburam & Ors.
SLP No.23335/2014 in the case of UOI Vs. OP Bhadhani.
SLP (CC) No.10436/2014 in the case of UOI Vs. Direndersingh
SLP No.21803/2014 in the case of UOI Vs. Mohanan Nair
OA No.904/2012 dated 26.11.2012 of the principal benchof CAT , New delhi.
Order dated 26.07.2013 in W.P. No.4662/2013 of the High Court of Delhi.
OP NO 816/2012 dated 29.01.2013 of Ernakulam Bench of the CAT in the case of Mohanan
Nair .
Uttrapradesh CAT No.2000/2013 of the High Court of Kerala.
10 WP No.11535/2014 of Madras high court in the case of UOI Vs. Balakrishnan and SLP
NO 15396/2016 of the Apex court in the same case.
11.WP NO 19024/2014 of Madras high court in the case of R Chandrasekaran Vs. UOI
12. WP No.19387/2011 dated 19.10.2011 of the High Court of Punjab & Harayana in the
case of UOI Vs. Rajpal
13. OA No.1038/2010 of the Chandigarh Bench of the Hon CAT.
14. OA No.3441/2012 in the case of All India CGHS Employees Association & Ors vs UOI
15. WP No.8515/2014 of the High Court of Delhi in the case of UOI vs All India CGHS
Employees Association & Ors
16. OA No.18/2015 of the Ahmedabad Bench of Hon’ble CAT.
17. OA No.195/2014 dated 28.04.2016 of Calcutta Bench of the Hon’ble CAT.
18. OA No.864/2014 dated 12.03.2014 of the principal benchof CAT , New delhi ,
All these decisions except the decision of the Hon Madras High court in the case of
Chandrasekaran and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of UOI vs All India
CGHS Employees Association & Ors are not relevant to the issue on hand because they are
apparently on the issue of granting of MACP benefit in the promotional hierarchy and not
on the issue of counting the pay scale with GP of Rs.5,400/- in PB2 for MACP,In the case of
Balakrishnan, the Hon High Court of Madras has held that the movement being not to the
Pay scale / GP of the next promotional hierarchy para 8.1 is not applicable and hence the
grade pay of Rs.6,600/- was rightly granted as the 3rd Financial upgradation . As regards the
decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of All India CGHS Employees
Association, it has been given under different facts. In this case, the granting of the GP of
Rs.4,200/- as a non-functional upgradation, was through an executive order based on the
recommendation of the Fast Track Committee (FTC) constituted subsequent to the issue of
the 6th CPC resolution and RP Rules, 2008 and it is not on the status of the revised/ up
graded pay under the RP Rules ,2008 . The case pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court is
only on the issue of granting of MACP benefit in the promotional hierarchy and the
conflicting decisions referred by it are also on the issue of granting of MACP benefit in the
promotional hierarchy .The Chandrasekaran case has not attained finality ,a contempt
petition had been filed and it is still pending.As the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of
the Hon’ble CAT in OA No:581-583/2016, OA No:653-656/2016 and in OA No:133/2017 has
solely relied up on the decision in the case of Bajranglal which itself has been made by
misconstruing the relevant facts and following irrelevant case laws, it is to be erroneous
and short of a binding precedent.
On the other hand ,the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Hari Ram has given a
judgement in Dec 2017 which is more specific to the issue of granting grade pay of
Rs.5,400/- in PB2 from the GP of Rs.4,800/- in PB2 and it has categorically held that it
being part of the pay scale ,it cannot be counted for MACP .

Favourable decisions
The Jabalpur bench of CAT, vide its decision dated 11.12.2015 in the case of central
executive commette vs uoi in OA No 1004/2010has held that admn instructions cannot
supplant the rules except when the rule are silent. the method of replacement pay fixation
provided vide OM dated 13.10.2008 of the Exp dept of the Finance ministry should be
adopted in cases where there is up gradation of pay scale under the Rp rules,2008.

The Ernakulam bench of CAT, vide its decision dated 05.09.2013 in the case of M.Vijayan
vs UOI in OA No 304/2012 has held that the replacement scale to those in the pre revised
scale of Rs 8000 - with grade pay of Rs 5400 in PB3 and this non functional selection
cannot be considered for third MACP and the applicant would be entitled for the GP of Rs
6600 as 3rd financial up gradation.