JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 20.07.2017 (Annexure-9) passed in O.A. No. 051/00069/2016 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna ( Circuit Bench at Ranchi) whereby learned CAT has not interfered with the order dated 30.05.2015 passed by the respondents (Annexure-4) denying the applicants benefit under MACP Scheme under Estt. S. No. 123/2012. 3. Applicants/petitioners herein were claiming three financial up-gradation on the strength of their claim that their appointment against 25% Departmental Promotion Quota (DPQ) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) in the year 1994 vide Annexure-1 letter dated 13.06.1994 should be treated as direct appointment and past services of the applicants be not counted. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon the clarification contained at Annexure-5 being Estt. S. No. 123/2012, RBE No. 100/2012 dated 01.10.2012, the relevant extract of which reads as under: “MACP Scheme for Railway servants-treatment of employees selected under LDCE/GDCE Scheme-clarification reg. Railway Board’s letter No. PC-V/2009/ACP/2 dated 12.09.2012 (RBE No. 100/2012) is as under:- References how been received from Zonal Railways seeking clarification regarding grant of benefits under MACPS in respect of the employees qualifying through LDCE/GDCE. The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) the nodal deportment of Government on MACPS and it has been decided as under:- (i) If the relevant RRs provide for filling of vacancies in a grade by Direct Recruitment, induction of an employee to that grade through LDCE/GDCE may be treated as Direct Recruitment for the purpose of grant of financial up-gradation under MACPS. In such cases past service rendered in a tower pay scale/Grade pay shall not be counted for the purpose of MACP Scheme. (ii) If the relevant RRs prescribe a promotion Quota to be filled on the basis of LDCE/GDCE, such appointment would be treated as promotion for the purpose of benefit under MACPS and in such cases, past regular service shall also be counted for further benefits, if any, under the MACP Scheme. This issue with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways. ESTT. S. No. 124/2012 No. P/6th PC/3 RBE No. 112/2012 Dated: 03.10.2012.” 4. This issue with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways. ESTT. S. No. 124/2012 No. P/6th PC/3 RBE No. 112/2012 Dated: 03.10.2012.” 4. The Railways contested the claim before the learned CAT on the ground that the Engineering Workshop, Sini where these applicants have been working have three different quota for filling up vacancies of Junior Engineer in pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4200, namely (i) 25% Departmental Promotion Quota (ii) 25% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Quota and (iii) 50% Director Recruitment Quota to be filled through Railway Recruitment Board. According to the Railways, the applicants have been promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in Pay band Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay Rs. 4200 against 25% LDCE w.e.f. 10.04.1995 in the pre-revised scale. Accordingly, the applicants come within the purview of the Para-II of Estt. S. No. 123/2012, quoted hereinabove. 5. The learned Tribunal agreed with the stand of the respondent Railways and held that the claim of the applicants to have been directly recruited through LDCE quota against 25% vacancies in the year 1995 is not correct. Their contention to discount the past service on that reasoning is fallacious. It accordingly held that applicants have already got more than three financial up-gradation i.e. (1) Khalasi to Technician Gr. III (2) Technician Gr. III to Technician Gr. II (3) Technician Gr. II to JE and (4) JE to SSE within their service period. Hence they are not eligible for any further financial up-gradation. It also opined that in terms of South Eastern Railway’s Estt. S. No. 125 of 2008, the post of JE II and JE I have been merged in G.P. Rs. 4200 and SE and SSE have also been merged in G.P. Rs. 4600. But since the applicants have already got more than three financial benefits during the service period, they are not eligible for getting further benefit under the scheme. 6. Learned Tribunal also distinguished the decision of learned CAT, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 03 of 2012 vide order dated 01.01.2013 relied by the applicants as the case of the applicants depended upon the service career of individual employee under the MACP scheme. 6. Learned Tribunal also distinguished the decision of learned CAT, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 03 of 2012 vide order dated 01.01.2013 relied by the applicants as the case of the applicants depended upon the service career of individual employee under the MACP scheme. It further held that as per the guidelines of RBE No. 100/2012 dated 01.10.2012, when appointment on the basis of LDCE/GDCE would be treated as promotion then applicants who have already got three financial up-gradation would not be entitled to further benefits under the MACP scheme. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have repeatedly harped upon the contention that if the appointment through LDCE in the year 1994/95 is treated as direct recruitment then the past service of the petitioners has to be discounted and they would logically be entitled to further financial up-gradation counting their services from that date. Therefore clause I of the scheme dated 01.10.2012 quoted above should apply to the case of the petitioners. 8. We are unable to agree to the proposition advanced by the petitioners for the simple reason that petitioners were departmental candidates and have got the benefits of promotion through LDCE and not through a direct recruitment competing with all other eligible candidates who joined service for the first time. If that an approach is adopted then perhaps the petitioners would themselves lose their benefits of past service and other service benefits. Such a convoluted interpretation of the relevant circular would not be in the scheme of things as contemplated under the MACP scheme. As such, we do not find any reason to differ with the opinion of the learned CAT nor the impugned order suffers from any error of law warranting interference. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.