ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Challenging the judgment pronounced on 25th February 2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in O.A. No.290/00412/2015 with M.A. No.290/00219/2017, the Union of India has filed this writ petition. 2. In O.A. No.290/00412/2015, challenge was laid by seventeen employees who held the post of Mail/Ex. Guard, Passenger Mail/ Ex. Guard, Sr. Passenger Guard etc. to the order dated 9th June 2015 by which the benefits under MACP scheme given to them were withdrawn and the order dated 23rd September 2015 by which an order of recovery was passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, North-West Railway, Ajmer Division. 3. The Tribunal considered different orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad and Ernakulam Benches and the decisions of the Allahabad High Court, the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench and came to a conclusion that the Railway Board Order RBE No.106/1993 was issued to prescribe the standard designations for the upgraded posts as well as for regulating the procedure for filling up the vacancies and for lateral induction of staff so upgraded in normal Promotional Grades. The Tribunal further noticed that the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Writ -A No.18244 of 2013 “Union of India Vs. CAT & Ors.” dated 9th July 2013 was implemented by the Eastern Central Railway, Mugalsarai and the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The Tribunal held as under:- "25. It is very clear from the discussions as above that the submissions and arguments of the respondent department are not tenable. The withdrawal of MACP benefits given to the appellants had been substantially justified on the basis of the order Railway Board order dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure R/2) which, it is seen has been upheld in the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as stated above. 26. The very same issue fell for consideration before the Jaipur bench of C.A.T. in OA No.468/2011 and batch. 26. The very same issue fell for consideration before the Jaipur bench of C.A.T. in OA No.468/2011 and batch. In the said case the Tribunal following the order of CAT Allahabad bench in OA No.1241/2011 which was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in WP No.18244/2013 and also the order of the CAT Ernakulam bench in OA No.482/2011 and batch held that the legal position has been well settled by the judicial pronouncements in the said cases by taking the view that the movement of Senior Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Guard cannot be considered as a promotion for the purpose of considering the benefits of MACP. 27. As rightly contended by the applicants their existing pay structure shows only how Grade Pays in respect of the four posts but they have been wrongly treated as promoted three times in 30 years of service and their prayer for grant of 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations can be granted. Therefore, they are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the OA." 5. The aforesaid decision by the Tribunal has been challenged on the basis of a clarification issued by the Railway Board on 10th February 2011 followed by the clarifications dated 13th December 2020. 6. Mr. Vivek Shrimali, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the benefits of the financial upgradation under the MACP scheme cannot be in excess to what the employee would get on actual promotion in the hierarchy. To lay support to his submission, the learned Senior Standing Counsel refers to a clarification issued by the East Coast Railway on 25th May 2023 and the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Union of India and Ors. Vs. Mukti Singha” in Civil Appeal No.3321/2018 with other civil appeals. On the other hand, Mr. J.K. Kaushik the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the decision in “Union of India & Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar” and other cases dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 7th November 2023. 7. The materials on record disclose that there had been series of litigations regarding entitlement of the employees holding the post of Mail Express Guards, Good Guards, Mail Guards to seek second and third MACP. Vs. Surendra Kumar” and other cases dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 7th November 2023. 7. The materials on record disclose that there had been series of litigations regarding entitlement of the employees holding the post of Mail Express Guards, Good Guards, Mail Guards to seek second and third MACP. One such issue fell for consideration before the Allahabad High Court which held that the designation of post shall not be construed as upgradation as envisaged under the MACP scheme. The another decision came from the Patna High Court in CWJC No.6398/2016 which, as noticed above, came to be challenged before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6570/2018 and the decision rendered by the Patna High Court against the railways was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. We may also refer to the decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in Original Application No.290/000540/2013 which interfered with the clarifications dated 2nd October 2011 and orders dated 21st November 2013/8th November 2013 and held that the employees holding the post of Mail Guard, Senior Passenger Guard, Passenger Guard and Senior Goods Guard are entitled for the benefits under the MACP scheme. Referring to Paragraph Nos. 5 and 8 under the MACP scheme, the Tribunal held that the scheme so envisaged does not speak about the upgradation granted under the ACP scheme and, therefore, when a question of merger of promotions/upgradation granted under the ACP scheme arises the provision under Para 4 would invariably be applicable. 9. For easy reference Paragraph Nos. 5 and 8 under the MACP scheme are extracted here-in-below:- "5. It is further stated that the applicants were allowed due fixation of revised pay and allowances including the benefits of 2nd/ 3rd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP of Rs.4200 to the grade pay of Rs.4600 and 4800 as per their entitlements, under MACP Scheme as mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.05.2013, in column formerly paid financial benefits, 3rd respondent issued an order dated 15.05.2013, where by the benefits, if MACP granted to the applicants and other Guards have been ordered to be withdrawn with consequential recoveries in pursuance of Railway Board Circular dated 10.02.2011. The controversy involved in this case has already been settled by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ -A No.18244 of 2013 (UOI & Ors. Vs. The controversy involved in this case has already been settled by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ -A No.18244 of 2013 (UOI & Ors. Vs. C.A.T. & Ors.) vide judgment dated 09.07.2013. The judgment dated 24.08.2012 of the C.A.T. Allahabad as upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 09.07.2013 has already been implemented unconditionally and with any reservation vide letter dated 22.05.2013, issued by DPO Easter Central Railway Mugalsarai. SLP against the judgment of Allahabad High Court has also been dismissed. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8. The benefits under ACP were given on the basis of promotional hierarchy and in case no promotional avenue, the next pay scale was to be given. On the other hand, the MACP is to be granted on the basis of Grade Pay hierarchy i.e. only in the next higher grade pay. The order of withdrawal was passed on the basis of RBE No.10.09.2009 which was dealt with by the Allahabad High Court in the case and set at rest. But the impugned order is now sought to be justified on the subsequent circular dated 17.12.2012 which even did not exist when the main order was passed. Some of the similarly situated Guards of Bikaner Division of NWR have filed their case before this Tribunal, against withdrawal of MACP benefits and rejection of their representation and have insisted for grant of stay order as due benefits had been given to the Guards of Ajmer Division to which the applicants belong. This has resulted into issued an order dated 23.09.2015 (Annexure A2) in reference to order dated 09.06.2015, the earlier 15.05.2013 has been ordered to be given effect to in case of applicants. Therefore, the applicants have left with no option except to approach this Tribunal again for redressal of their grievances. Hence the OA." 10. In our opinion, the challenge laid by the Union of India to the decision in O.A. No.412/2015 is without any substance. There is a fundamental distinction between the ACP scheme and the MACP scheme. Though both the schemes were intended to address the stagnation in the cadre which would result in frustration in the employees on account of lack of promotional avenues, the ACP scheme was based on a concept of promotional hierarchy in the cadre. There is a fundamental distinction between the ACP scheme and the MACP scheme. Though both the schemes were intended to address the stagnation in the cadre which would result in frustration in the employees on account of lack of promotional avenues, the ACP scheme was based on a concept of promotional hierarchy in the cadre. The ACP scheme envisaged that in a cadre where there is no avenue for promotion in two hierarchical posts, the employee shall be granted pay scale as provided under Appendix (i) of the scheme. In other cases, the employee shall be entitled to pay scale of the next promotional post on rendering 12 and 14 years of service. Whereas, the MACP scheme envisages grant of Grade Pay/Pay Scale which was introduced on the recommendation of the 7th Pay Revision on completing 10, 20 and 30 years of service. The concept of Pay Grade which involved different varied considerations was floated for the first time in 7th Pay Commission recommendations. It is well accepted that there may be different Pay Scales in the same Pay Grade and a government employee on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service shall be entitled for next Pay Grade/Pay Scale as provided in the tabular chart. 11. There is also an issue of judicial discipline and propriety in following a previous decision of the Court. This is really in the public interest that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench is accepted as correct by another bench else there would be a chaos in the legal system. In “Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P.” (2002) 4 SCC 234 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if a J. starts doubting the decision of a co-ordinate Bench on the similar issue then there can never be certainty in the legal system which is the foundational object of the rule of law. In “State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer”, (2003) 5 SCC 448 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a case where a co-ordinate Bench may nurture a doubt that the previous decision of the co-ordinate Bench is not correct still it shall not be open to the Court dealing with a similar issue in a subsequent case to differ with the said judgment. In “Kalika Kuer” the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "10……. In “Kalika Kuer” the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "10……. an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the court or more aspects should have been gone into by the court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways — either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits.” 12. Having this principle in mind, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Union of India & Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar” and other cases gave a quietus to the decision by the Patna High Court and the Allahabad High Court. Such decisions are now binding on the Union of India. As to the decision in “Mukti Singha”, we would just indicate that the said case was with reference to the benefits under the ACP scheme and not under the MACP scheme which is quite apparent on a glance at Paragraph No.11 of the Judgment by the High Court. In fact, in Paragraph No.5 of “Mukti Singha” the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly indicated that the said case pertained to MACP scheme but the High Court had proceeded to grant relief as if the same related to ACP scheme. In Paragraph No.5 of “Mukti Singha's” case, the following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court that the respondents are entitled to grade pay higher than what they may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy cannot be sustained. The High Court erred in distinguishing the judgment on the ground that the same related to ACP Scheme. We do not find any reason to exclude the principle laid down there in for interpretation of MACP. The High Court erred in distinguishing the judgment on the ground that the same related to ACP Scheme. We do not find any reason to exclude the principle laid down there in for interpretation of MACP. Moreover, clarification referred to above fully supports this interpretation." 13. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5946/2020 is dismissed.