- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 54272 OF 2016 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI-580 020. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE-570 001. 3. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI-580 020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, CGC) AND: 1. S.V.PREMANANDA, S/O S.V.BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS MAIL AND EXPRESS GUARD, SWR, MYSORE, R/AT 181/B, TANK ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 007. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 2. M.MANJUNATHA, S/O K.MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS MAIL AND EXPRESS, SWR MYSORE, R/AT NO.396, RAILWAY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570 017. 3. M.ELANGOVAN, S/O MANICKAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS MAIL AND GUARD, SWR ARSIKERE, R/AT NO.176, RAILWAY QUARTERS, ARSIKERE-573 103. 4. R.L.SHANMUKAPPA, S/O R.H.LAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS MAIL AND EXPRESS GUARD, SWR ARSIKERE, R/AT BRUNGARA II CLASS, SHARAVATHINAGAR, SHIMOGA-577 201. 5. M.SHEKAR, S/O S.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS MAIL AND EXPRESS GUARD, SWR ARSIKERE, R/AT RAILWAY QUARTERS, NO.164/H, ARSIKERE -573 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.RAGHAVENDRACHAR FOR R1 TO R4 R5 SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO QAUSH THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 PASSED IN O.A.NO.1252-1256 OF 2014 BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.01.2016 passed in OA Nos. 1252 to 1256/2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (in short, ‘Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OAs by stating as under:- “Heard. It appears that the applicant was first appointed as a Goods Guard, the equivalent grade pay under 6th Pay Commission was Rs.2,000/-. Не got his next promotion on 09.07.1989 as Senior Goods Guard for which the equivalent grade pay under 6th Pay Commission was Rs.2800/-. Thereafter he received one more promotion on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 18.02.1996 as a Passenger Guard for which the equivalent grade pay is Rs.4200/- Thereafter on 31.12.2009 he was promoted as Mail/Express Guard for which also now wrongly in Annexure-R1 a grade pay of Rs. 4200/- is noted. But it is to be noted that when he was promoted as a Passenger Guard he was drawing a grade pay of Rs.4200/- this was sought to be explained. On the basis of Annexure-A13 that in consultation with the DOPT it has been decided that, that kind of adjustment can be done. Without any doubt, it cannot be done. The Hon'ble Apex Court had clarified this matter that on promotion there has to be a different at least next higher grade pay to be granted to him, therefore, the already granted grade pay of Rs.4600/- appears to be correct. Since the respondents submit that that may not be done on the basis of Annexure-A13, Annexure-A13 is hereby quashed as illegal and arbitrary. It is also absolutely illogical. The Hon'ble Apex Court had time and again held that for each promotional avenue being opened there must be a resultant grant of enhancement of pay which can only be reflected by enhancement in the grade pay. This was actually correctly understood by railways earlier when they granted in 2008 itself the grade pay of Rs.4600/-. That grant is correct and Annexure-A13 is wrong, therefore, OA is allowed. It is hereby declared that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 the railways had earlier granted Rs.4600/- correctly and, therefore, there is no question of recovery. OA is allowed. No order as to costs.” 2. The submission of Mr. Pramod B., the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, in terms of the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short ‘ MACP Scheme’) was implemented. The said Scheme replaced the earlier scheme formulated under the V Central Pay Commission, i.e., is ACP. The said MACP Scheme came into effect on 01.09.2008. The MACP Scheme provided for three financial upgradations counted from Direct Entry Grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. This was admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same Grade pay. The MACP Scheme envisages, placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the revised Pay Bands/Grade Pay. According to him, the respondents herein had completed 26 years, 24 years, 16 years and 18 years of service respectively. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 Therefore, they were granted promotion on different posts. 3. The Railway Board in consultation with the Department of Personnel, issued a Clarification dated 10.02.2011 to the effect that, when the employees who earned promotion as per their cadre hierarchy, even if the promotional post is in the same Grade Pay, they are not entitled for financial upgradation, as their case is not a case of genuine stagnation. Thus, an employee, who is appointed as Goods Guard, would earn 3 promotions/ financial upgradation till he reaches Mail/Express Guard. Therefore, the employee will be benefited by 3 promotions. Though two of them are in the same Grade Pay with the benefit of promotional increment, they were not eligible for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, in Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. According to him, the respondents herein, who were granted 2nd/3rd Financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- was erroneous. It was through show- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 cause notice dated 28.11.2013 the respondents were called upon to show cause as to why the financial upgradation be not revised and their pay be fixed at Rs.4,200/-. 4. We have already re-produced the relevant paragraph of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has justified the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. This according to Mr. Pramod is clearly an erroneous order. He has drawn our attention to Page 51 of the Paper Book to contend that, in terms of the order dated 04.06.2014, the appellants herein have revised the pay of the respondents in the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-. It is that order, which needs to be given effect to. Unfortunately, the Tribunal overlooking the clarification dated 10.02.2011, has allowed the OAs, which is untenable. 5. He do concede to the fact that, the respondents herein have retired and are getting pension. He also states that, before the recovery pursuant to the order dated 04.06.2014 can be effected, the respondents - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 approached the Tribunal, because of which recovery could not be made. He states that the order of the Tribunal being erroneous, is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would justify the order of the Tribunal. He do concede that, no recovery has been effected from the salary/pension of the respondents herein. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the respondents have retired from service, the impugned action having taken while the respondents were in-service and also the fact that no recovery has been effected, we are of the view, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in AIR 2015 SC 696, even if the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- is erroneous, no recovery could be effected. Possibly the appellants are right in contending that the respondents could not have been granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11789-DB WP No. 54272 of 2016 8. We accordingly, set aside the order of the Tribunal and dispose of the petition by restraining the respondents from making any recovery pursuant to the revised order dated 04.06.2014. 9. The appellants shall only be permitted to re-fix the pay of the respondents and also the pension, but no recovery shall be made on the basis of the revision of the pay/pension. On fixing the same, the pension shall be payable based on the revised order. 10. The petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33