Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 179 (PAT)

Om Prakash Pandey v. Union of India

2025-02-13

P.B.BAJANTHRI, SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

body2025
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—The petitioners have assailed the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.07.2021 passed in O.A. No.328 of 2021 along with M.A. No.353 of 2021 and M.A. No.352 of 2021. The grievances of the petitioners are that petitioners were initially appointed to the post of P. Way Mistries and it was re-designated as P. Way Supervisor on 01.10.1996. Further the post of P. Way Supervisor was redesignated as J.E. (P. Way) Grade-II on 09.10.2003. In this backdrop identical situated persons who have approached judicial forum and have got relief. On the other hand, petitioners’ grievances have not been redressed, resultantly petitioners were compelled to file O.A. No.328 of 2021. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal while disposing of O.A. No.328 of 2021 passed the following orders. Paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the order reads as under:— “5. Considered the submissions. Here there are 23 applicants but Annexure-R/3 reveals that it is given by seven employees only. Anyhow liberty is granted to the applicants who have not filed representation earlier, to file representation within two weeks of this order. Without going into the merits of the OA, we think it would be appropriate to dispose of the OA with direction to the concerned respondents authority to consider the pending representations Annexure R-3 as well the representations of those applicants who has not represented earlier but has filed representation now within two weeks time granted by this Order and to pass order on all said representations within three months, to be counted from the date of expiry of period of two weeks granted to applicants to file representation or from the date of receipt of the copy of Order, whichever is later. 6. With said liberty and direction this OA & both MA 352 of 2021 and MA 353 of 2021 stand disposed of.” 2. The petitioners should have filed Contempt of Court application before the C.A.T. insofar as non-compliance of the C.A.T. order dated 19.07.2021, on the other hand, they have preferred the present writ petition. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that having regard to the service particulars of the petitioners, they are not entitled to pay fitment and MACP. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that having regard to the service particulars of the petitioners, they are not entitled to pay fitment and MACP. It is submitted that petitioners have been extended higher pay scale or pay while re-designating the post of P. Way Mistries to that of P. Way Supervisor and J.E. (P. Way) Grade-II and it amounts to promotion, resultantly petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of pay fitment and MACP as claimed by the petitioners. 3. In this context respondents are stated to have issued order or O.M. insofar as rejecting the petitioners’ claim on 13.12.2021 thereafter it was withdrawn. Therefore, grievances of petitioners are still subsisting. If the identical persons situated have been extended the benefit of pay fitment and MACP, on this score, petitioners are also entitled. The respondents’ contention that petitioners have been extended higher pay while re-designating the post of P. Way Mistries to that of P. Way Supervisor and further P. Way Supervisor to J.E. (P. Way) Grade - II. Merely extending certain higher pay while re-designating the existing post does not amount to promotion. The object of extending MACP is that an employee/ officer stagnated in a particular post for 10 years, in such an event he or she is entitled to have the benefit of MACP. The petitioners were stagnated in a particular post and re-designation of such post does not amount to promotion. Ingredients of promotion are like extending higher pay scale attached to a particular post and so also higher responsibilities and other factors. Therefore, merely re-designation of particular post on two occasions does not amount to promotion. In the Railway Department, “Promotion to a higher cadre” means an employee being moved from a lower-level position to a higher-level position within the organizational hierarchy, usually involving increased responsibility, higher pay grade, and access to move senior roles, often achieved through merit-based selection or seniority depending on the specific post and railway rules; essentially, a step up in rank within the Railway Service. The aforementioned ingredients are not involved insofar as re-designation of post like P. Way Mistries to P. Way Supervisor and further from P. Way Supervisor to J.E. (P. Way) Grade - II. 4. In view of these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case so as to extend the benefit of pay fitment and MACP. The aforementioned ingredients are not involved insofar as re-designation of post like P. Way Mistries to P. Way Supervisor and further from P. Way Supervisor to J.E. (P. Way) Grade - II. 4. In view of these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case so as to extend the benefit of pay fitment and MACP. In this regard, the concerned authority is hereby directed to extend pay fitment and MACP to the petitioners in the light of observation made supra within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.07.2021 passed in O.A. No.328 of 2021 along with M.A. No.353 of 2021 and M.A. No.352 of 2021 stands set-aside. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.