Jharkhand High Court
The Union Of India Through The General … vs Om Prakash Sharma on 21 April, 2026
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S)No. 4256 of 2025
---------
1. The Union of India through the General Manager,
East Central Railway, Hajipur, At- Hazipur, P.O. & P.S.-
Hazipur, District- Vaishali (Bihar).
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. Hajipur, District
– Vaishali, Bihar.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central
Railway, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District –
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central
Railway, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District –
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS.
VERSUS
1. Om Prakash Sharma, aged about 56 years, Son of
Late R.K. Sharma, Resident of Railway Qtr. No. 37/A,
Station Colony, Barkakana, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.
Barkakana, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
2. Binod Kumar Jha, aged about 56 years, Son of Sri
Ram Kumar Jha, Resident of Railway Qtr. No. 149 AB,
Kalipara, P.O. & P.S. Gomo, District Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
3. Mohan Hansdah, aged about 58 years, Son of Late
Gaichan Hansdah, Resident of Qtr. No. 395 EF, ST No.
3, South Colony, Gomo, P.O. & P.S. Gomo, District –
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 56 years, Son of
Late Surendra Pandey Akhil, Resident of Railway Qtr.
No. 87A, Railway Colony, At, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapura,
District – Bokaro, Jharkhand.
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS
———
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
———-
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Adv
———–
C.A.V on 10/04/2026 Pronounced on 21/04/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Prayer:
Page | 1
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
1. The instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed against order dated
17.12.2024 passed in OA/051/01142/2019 by learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit
Bench, Ranchi, by which, the learned tribunal has
quashed order dated 02.08.2019, whereby and
whereunder the benefits of MACP to Grade Pay of Rs.
4600-4800 has been denied; and further the tribunal
directed to give benefits of MACP in the Grade Pay of
Rs.4600-4800 including other entire consequential
benefits to the respondents/applicants on the similar
footing/line, as granted to the applicants of OA No.
051/00027/2014.
Factual Matrix:
2. The respondents-applicants, preferred Original
Application before the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, stating
therein the facts, in brief, as under:
3. The applicant no. 1, namely, Om Prakash Sharma was
appointed as Assistant Commercial Clerk, in Grade Pay
of Rs. 2000 on 18.03.1987. He was promoted to the post
of Sr. Commercial Clerk in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800
w.e.f. 01.05.1996 and further promoted as Goods Guard
in same Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 from 01.04.2002. He was
Page | 2
2026:JHHC:11678-DBgiven 2nd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in the Grade Pay of
Rs. 4200. It is stated that at the time of filing of the
Original Application, the applicant no. 1 was posted at
Barkakana, in Dhanbad Division and his 3rd MACP has
become due after completion of 30 years of regular
service i.e. from 18.03.2017.
4. The applicant no. 2, namely, Binod Kumar Jha was
appointed as Goods Guard, in Gomo Division, Dhanbad
Division on 18.09.1986 and was promoted to the post of
Sr. Goods Guard in the year 2013 in Grade Pay of
Rs.4200. It is stated that at the time of filing of the
Original Application, the applicant no. 2 was posted at
Gomo in Dhanbad Division. The 2nd MACP is due from
01.09.2008 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 and also 3rd
MACP is due from 18.09.2016 in Grade Pay of Rs.4800
i.e. after completion of 20 and 30 years of service.
5. The applicant no. 3, namely, Mohan Hansdah was
appointed on 25.03.1987 as Goods Guard in Grade Pay
of Rs.2800 and was promoted to the post of Sr. Goods
Guard in the year 1992, in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. It
is stated that at the time of filing of the Original
Application, the applicant no. 3 was working as Mail
Express Guard in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 and his 2nd
and 3rd MACP is due from 01.09.2008 and 25.03.2017
respectively.
Page | 3
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
6. The applicant no. 4, namely, Dinesh Kumar Pandey was
appointed as Goods Guard in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800
on 27.09.1986 and was promoted to the post of Sr.
Goods Guard in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 and thereafter he
was designated as Sr. Passenger Guard in the same
Guard Pay; and at the time of filing of the Original
Application he was working as Mail/Express Guard
since 01.12.2012 in the same Grade Pay in Gomo, at
Dhanbad Division. His 2nd MACP is due from
01.09.2008 in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 and 3rd MACP is
due from 27.09.2016 in Grade Pay of Rs.4800.
7. It is the case of the applicants, the respondents herein,
that the pay scale of Sr. Goods Guard, Passenger Guard
is same. It is further case of the applicants that several
other similarly situated persons, who were appointed as
Goods Guard in the initial pay scale of Rs. 2800 were
extended the benefits of MACP after being found eligible
as per the scheme formulated by the Govt. of India and
thereafter those applicants started getting financial
benefits under the MACP Scheme in the scale of
Rs.4600/4800.
8. However, the Railway Board clarified that the promotion
from Sr. Goods Guard to Passenger Guard should be
counted for the purpose of MACP Scheme. It was further
clarified by the Board that if an employee appointed as
Page | 4
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
Goods Guard earns three promotion/financial up-
gradation till he reaches the post of Mail/Express Guard
he shall not be entitled to further financial up-gradation
under MACP Scheme.
9. It is stated that the Sr. Personnel Officer, East Central
Railway, Dhanbad had informed them that financial up-
gradation granted to them under MACP is being
reviewed and accordingly their pay shall be re-casted.
10. It is stated that some similarly situated persons
filed an Original Application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, which
was numbered as O.A. No. 051/00027/2014, and was
decided taking into consideration the other Original
Applications filed before the different Tribunals and vide
order dated 14th January, 2015 it was held that the
relief prayed for in this OA are allowed in full and the
up-gradation granted under MACP be given to the
applicants within a period of 3 months from the date of
receipt of the communication of this order.
11. Thereafter, the Union of India had filed writ
petition before the Jharkhand High Court, being, W.P.(S)
No. 4754 of 2015 which was dismissed holding that
there is no substance in the writ petition, against which,
the UOI filed SLP before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
which was also dismissed. Against which, the review
Page | 5
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
being Review Petition (C) No. 386 of 2018, which too was
dismissed vide order dated 20th February, 2018.
12. It is case of the applicants that as the case of the
applicants, the respondents herein, were also similar to
those of the applicants of the OA No. 27/2014, these
applicants sought that the same benefits shall also be
extended to them.
13. It is further stated that in the meantime, a
communication dated 11.07.2018 was made to General
Manager (P), East Central Railway, Hajipur, by Sr.
Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad, wherein it was communicated that keeping
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)
No. 4501 of 2017 in mind there should be a review of
the present policy of MACP in Guard Cadre so that
Railway Rules may come in the tune to judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, it was requested
to raise issue at appropriate level and to communicate
the guidelines in the subject matter.
14. The General Manager (P), ECR had also written to
Director, Pay Commission, Railway Board, New Delhi on
13.08.2018 for taking necessary action and necessary
changes with regard to the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 2501/2017 for
Page | 6
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
financial up-gradation in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 and
4800, respectively, as references are being received from
several sides and division, regarding grant of financial
up-gradation of Grade Pay Rs.4600 and Rs.4800 in
Guard Cadre.
15. It is the case of the applicants, the respondents
herein that in light of the order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, these applicants submitted
representations individually to the Divisional Railway
Manager (P), Eastern Central Railway, Dhanbad for
extending the MACP to these applicants to their
respective Grade Pay i.e. Rs. 4600/4800.
16. In response thereto, a letter was issued by the Sr.
Divisional Personnel Officer East Central Railway,
Dhanbad on 02.08.2019, rejecting the claim of the
applicants wherein it has been said that the Grade Pay
of Rs. 4600 or Rs. 4800 is not admissible to them. It is
pertinent to note that letter dated 02.08.2019 was
issued in the light of letter dated 18.07.2012 issued by
the Divisional Railway Manager (P), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad.
17. Being aggrieved with letter dated 02.08.2019
issued by the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer East
Central Railway, Dhanbad, the applicants approached
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna
Page | 7
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi by filing original
application being OA/051/01142/2019, which was
allowed vide order dated 17.12.2024 entitling the
applicants for the relief as sought for and direction was
passed to extend the benefit of MACP to the Grade Pay
of Rs. 4600-4800/- including other entire consequential
benefits to the applicants on the similar footing/line as
granted to the applicants of OA No. 051/00027/2014.
18. The petitioners-Union of India through Railway
being aggrieved with the order dated 17.12.2024 passed
in OA/051/01142/2019, approached before this Court
by filing the present writ petition.
Submission on behalf of petitioners-UOI
19. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned CGC appearing
for the writ petitioner-UOI, has assailed the impugned
order passed by the tribunal on the following grounds.
20. Submission has been made that applicant no. 1,
Om Prakash Sharma was appointed as Asst.
Commercial Clerk in Grade pay Rs.2000/- and
promoted as senior Commercial Clerk in Grade pay
Rs.2800/- and as Goods Guard in same Grade pay of
Rs.2800/-. Now he is working as Senior Goods Guard in
Grade Pay Rs.4200/-. The applicant No.2 is also
working as Senior Goods Guard in Grade pay Rs.4200/-
Page | 8
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
The applicant No.03 is working as Mail/Express Guard
in Grade Pay Rs.4200/- and the applicant No.04 is
working as Mail/Express guard in Grade Pay Rs.4200/-.
21. The Railway Board vide
No.PCV/2010/MACP/7/ECR its letter dated
10.02.2011, clarified that every financial up-gradation is
to be counted as up-gradation and offset against the
financial up-gradation under MACP in terms of Board’s
letter dated 10.06.2009 (RBE No.101/2009). Therefore,
the placement grant of higher grade pay from Goods
Guard to Sr. Goods Guard on Non-functional basis
should be reckoned as up-gradation for the purpose of
MACP scheme.
22. Further, the categories of Passenger Guard and Sr.
Passenger Guard have been merged and allotted Grade
Pay of Rs.4200/- vide Boards letter dated 11.09.2008
(RBE No.108/2008). In terms of Para-08 of the Board’s
letter dated 10.06.2009, the promotion from Sr. Goods
guard to Passenger Guard should be counted for the
purpose of MACPS and in terms of Para-05 of the said
letter, the promotion from Passenger Guard to Sr.
Passenger Guard should be ignored for MACP Scheme.
23. On the aforesaid backdrop, it is stated that an
employee appointed as Goods Guard has earned
Page | 9
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
following three promotions/financial up-gradations till
he reaches Mail/Express Guard viz:-
(i) From Goods Guard to Sr. Goods Guard.
(ii) From Sr. Goods Guard to Passenger Guard.
(iii).From Sr. Passenger Guard to Mail/Express Guard
(Passenger Guard to Sr. Passenger Guard to be ignored).
24. Therefore, such employees are not entitled to pay
further financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme.
25. Further submission has been made that due to
implementation of 6th Pay Commission, the Guard
Cadre and its pay structure avenue of promotion etc. is
as under:-
(i) Goods Guard, PB-1, Rs. 5200-20200/-+ Grade pay
Rs. 2800/-
(ii) Senior Goods Guard, PB-2, Rs. 9300-34800/-+ Grade
pay Rs. 4200/-
(iii) Passenger/Senior Guard, PB-2, Rs. 9300-34800/-+
Grade pay Rs. 4200/-
(iv) Mail/Express Guard, PB-2, Rs. 9300-34800/-+
Grade pay Rs. 4200/-
26. It has been submitted that when promotion is
given from Goods Guard to Senior Goods Guard, one 3%
increment + difference of Grade Pay has been granted.
When promotion is given from Senior Goods guard to
Passenger/Senior Passenger Guard, running allowance
& other allowances are enhanced.
Page | 10
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
27. Further, when promotion is given from Passenger
Guard/Senior Passenger Guard to Mail/Express Guard,
promotional benefit by granting one increment of 3%
and running allowance, and additional allowance
Rs.500/-+ Dearness allowance (DA) are enhanced. As
per Railway Board’s letter no. PC-VII/217/1/7/5/5
dated 10.08.17 (RBE No.85/2017) additional allowances
Rs.750/- and Rs. 1125/- with dearness allowance (DA)
is also granted to Senior Passenger Guard and
Mail/Express Guard respectively w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
28. Submission has been made that although there is
same Grade pay from Senior Goods Guard to
Mail/Express guard i.e. Grade pay Rs.4200/-, so in
terms of RBE No.101/09 all staff of Guard Category
were granted financial up-gradation under MACP to next
higher Grade Pay.
29. Learned CGC further referring to the Railway
Board letter No. PC V/2010/MACP/7/ECR, dated
10.02.2011 submitted that the said letter clarified that
the Guard category earns substantial monetary benefit
while granting promotion from Goods Guard to
Mail/Express Guard, so they should not be granted
further financial up-gradation to next higher Grade Pay
i.e. Grade pay Rs.4600/-, Rs.4800/- etc. as they earned
three promotions in hierarchy.
Page | 11
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
30. It has been submitted that in terms of said Railway
Board‟s letter dated 10.02.2011, the financial up-
gradation granted to Guard Category under MACP
scheme was reviewed which was intimated to the
concerned staff and their depot in charge vide letter
No.ET-1/Guard/MACP/11 dated 27.09.2011 and dated
05.09.2011 respectively. Accordingly their (Applicant
no.03 and 04 of this OA) pay was re-casted vide Estt.
Office Order No.2609/09/Pay-recast of 2011 and docket
no.ET-I/Guard/MACP/11 dated 27.9.2011.
31. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Railway has
further drawn attention of the Court toward Board‟
circular/order/direction, which clarifies that the
financial up-gradation under ACP/MACP scheme cannot
be allowed to higher Grade pay an employee on his
normal promotion (i.e. Guard promoted up-to Grade pay
Rs.4200/-) vide Rly. Bd’s letter no. PC-
V/2010/MACP/7/ECR/ dated 30.04.12 and letter no.
PC-V/2009/ACP/12, dated 13.12.2012 (RBE No.
142/2012 and GM(P)/Hajipur letter No.
E/205(A)/O/ECR/HJP dated 18.07.2012.
32. It has been submitted that some staff of Guard
category has filed an OA No.051/00027/2014, Kawish
Kr. & Ors. Vrs. UOI & Ors, before the learned CAT,
Ranchi, which was disposed of vide order dated
Page | 12
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
14.01.15. The matter travelled up-to Hon‟ble Apex Court
even by filing review petition, which was also dismissed.
Therefore, in compliance of order dated 14.01.2015
passed in O.A. No.051/00027/2014 by the Tribunal, the
benefit of MACP of the petitioners of that Original
Application was provisionally extended. Further, the
benefit of MACP in GP Rs.4600/-has been granted to the
applicant no.03 and 04 of the Original Application vide
letter no.ET-1/Guard/MACP/10 dated 18.05.2010
which was re-casted vide Estt. Office Order
No.2609/09/Pay-recast of 2011 and docket no.ET-
1/Guard/MACP/11, dated 27.09.2011 as per Board’s
directed and the benefit of MACP in GP. 4200/- have
been granted to the applicant no.02 and 01 of this OA
vide letter dated 18.05.2010 and 10.02.2012
respectively.
33. Pursuant thereto, the applicants submitted
application vide letter dated Nil to extend benefit of
MACP to the grade pay Rs.4600/- and 4800/-. The
applicants were informed vide this office letter no.ET-
I/Guard/MACP/14 dated 02.08.19, that in terms of
GM(P)/Hajipur’s letter no.E/205(A)/O/ECR/HJP dated
18.07.2012 financial up-gradation under MACP scheme
in GP of Rs. 4600/- and Rs. 4800/- cannot be
extended.
Page | 13
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
34. Being aggrieved with the said letter the applicants
filed an OA No.051/1142/ 2019, the subject matter of
present case, before the CAT/Patna Circuit Bench at
Ranchi for quashing of the letter dated 02.08.2019 and
to give benefit of MACP in Grade Pay Rs.4600/-
Rs.4800/- as per judgment passed dated 14.01.2015 in
OA No.51/27/2014 before the tribunal.
35. In this regard, submission has been made that
sine the present applicants, the respondents herein were
not the party to O.A. No.051/00027/2014, as such they
are not entitled to any further financial up-gradation
under MACP scheme.
36. Referring to supplementary affidavit filed on behalf
of petitioners-railway submission has been made that
an employee appointed as Goods Guard earns following
promotions/financial up-gradations till he reaches
Mail/Exp. Guard:
I.Goods Guard to Sr. Goods Guard.
II.Sr. Goods Guard to Passenger Guard.
III.Passenger Guard to Sr. Passenger Guard.
IV.Sr. Passenger Guard to Mail/Exp. Guard.
[Passenger Guard to Sr. Passenger Guard to be ignored
due to merger].
Page | 14
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
37. Further attention has been drawn to the
hierarchical position of the concerned posts, which is in
tabular chart, the same is re-produced as under:
Posts Pay Scale/Grade Pay
Trainee 1200-2040/4500-7000/
Guard/Goods
Guard GP Rs. 2800/-
Sr. Goods 1350-2200/5000-8000/
Guard
GP Rs. 4200/-
Passenger 1350-2200/5000-8000/
Guard
GP Rs. 4200/-
Sr. Passenger 1350-2200/5500-9000/
Guard GP Rs. 4200/-
Mail/Exp. 1400-2300/5500-9000/
Guard GP 4200/-
38. Referring to the tabular chart, submission has
been made that the respondents-original applicants are
only entitled to get the higher Grade Pay which can be
allowed to an employee on normal promotion i.e., the
grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, but this aspect of the matter
has not been taken into consideration by learned
tribunal, hence, the same requires interference.
39. Learned CGC appearing for the petitioners-railway
has emphatically submitted that some other person
employed as Guard have got benefit of MACP Scheme in
Grade pay of 4600/-, 4800/- by virtue of order passed
by CAT which was upheld up-to Hon’ble Apex Court.
Page | 15
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
Submission has been made that in this regard, letter of
railway board dated 13.12.2012 is relevant which
provides that financial up-gradation under MACP
Scheme cannot be in higher Grade Pay what can be
allowed to an employee on normal promotion. The issue
regarding validity of this letter travelled up-to Hon’ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3328-3329/2018 with
analogous cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its
judgment dated 27.03.2018 has held that the employee
are not entitled to Grade pay higher than what they may
get on actual promotion in hierarchy. However, without
taking into account the preposition laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal has allowed the
Original Application relying upon judgment passed by
this Hon’ble Court, which requires interference.
40. Learned CGC appearing for the petitioners-Railway
on the aforesaid ground has submitted that the claim of
the applicants was unjustified, but the learned tribunal
did not take into consideration these facts and passed
the impugned order, which requires interference by this
Court.
Submission on behalf of respondents-applicants
41. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondents-applicants defending the order passed by
Page | 16
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
the tribunal has submitted that the learned tribunal has
well considered all these facts into consideration and
thereafter passed the impugned order, which requires
no interference by this Court.
42. It has emphatically been submitted similar issue
was raised before the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi by filing O.A No.
051/00027/2014, which was allowed vide order dated
14th January, 2015, and the matter travelled up-to
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, by filing review petition being
Review Petition (C) No. 386 of 2018, which was also
dismissed vide order dated 20th February, 2018.
Thereafter, such applicants-employee [Goods Guards]
were granted the benefit of up-gradation by granting the
Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and Rs. 4800/-. Therefore, the
respondents herein in light of the said order submitted
representations individually to the Divisional Railway
Manager (P), Eastern Central Railway, Dhanbad for
extending the MACP to these applicants to their
respective Grade Pay i.e. Rs. 4600/4800, which was
rejected vide order 02.08.2019, against which the
applicant filed the Original Application being
OA/051/01142/2019. The learned tribunal considering
the entire gamut of the matter has allowed the vide
order dated 17.12.2024 entitling the applicants for the
Page | 17
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
relief as sought for and direction was passed to extend
the benefit of MACP to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600-
4800/- including other entire consequential benefits to
the applicants on the similar footing/line as granted to
the applicants of OA No. 051/00027/2024, which
requires no interference by this Court.
43. Submission has been made that the basic grade
pay of Goods Guard is Rs. 2800/- thereafter, the next
hierarchical pay-scale and Grade pay is Rs. 4200; Rs.
4600/- and Rs. 4800/-, respectively, which is an
admitted position. Therefore, the stand of the
petitioners-Railway that for the promotional post of Sr.
Goods Guard, Passenger Guard, Sr. Passenger Guard
and Mail/Exp. Guard are same to the tune of Grade Pay
of Rs. 4200/-, which is beyond the recommendation of
Pay Commission Report.
44. Learned counsel for the applicants, the
respondents herein, on the aforesaid ground has
submitted that the order passed by the tribunal requires
no interference.
Analysis
45. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
documents available on record as also the finding
recorded by learned tribunal in the impugned order.
Page | 18
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
46. Admitted fact herein is that all the respondents-
applicants are under the cadre of „Guard‟, though
initially, the applicant no. 1 joined the post of Assistant
Commercial Clerk in Grade Pay of Rs. 2000 on
18.03.1987 and thereafter, he was promoted to Sr.
Commercial Clerk in Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 w.e.f.
01.05.1996 and he was promoted as Goods Guard in
same Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 w.e.f. 01.04.2002. Rest of
the applicants have joined initially on the post of „Goods
Guard‟ in corresponding Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, as
applicable in 6th PRC.
47. It further requires to mention herein that pursuant
to recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission, the Ministry of Railway replaced the
existing Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) by a
new Scheme, namely, Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (MACP Scheme). Under the ACP
Scheme, the employee were only entitled to two financial
up-gradation after 12 and 24 years of regular service,
which was replaced under MACP Scheme by 10, 20 and
30 years of regular service.
48. All the applicants entered in the service of „Goods
Guard‟ in the corresponding pay-scale of Rs. 2800/-. So
far as promotional avenue attached to the post of Goods
Page | 19
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
Guard is concerned, as per the pleading available on
record, it is from Goods Guard, Sr. Goods Guard,
Passenger Guard; Sr. Passenger Guard and
Mail/Express Guard. However, the pay-scale of Sr.
Goods Guard and Passenger Guard are the same.
49. Case of the respondents-original applicants is that
similarly situated „Goods Guards‟, who were in the pay-
scale with Grade Pay Rs. 2800/-, had approached the
Tribunal by filing Original Application No.
51/0027/2014 for extending the benefit of MACP to the
Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/4800 to the applicants, to the
tune of order passed by the tribunal at Ernakulam and
Allahabad, which was allowed and the matter travelled
up-to Hon‟ble Apex Court, wherein the view taken by the
tribunal has been affirmed.
50. While, the case of the writ petitioners-railways is
that as argued by learned CGC by referring to the
Railway Board letter No. PC V/2010/MACP/7/ECR,
dated 10.02.2011 is that the said letter clarified that the
Guard category earns substantial monetary benefit
while granting promotion from Goods Guard to
Mail/Express Guard, so they should not be granted
further financial up-gradation to next higher Grade Pay
Page | 20
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
i.e. Grade pay Rs.4600/-, Rs.4800/- etc. as they earned
three promotions in hierarchy.
51. So far order passed in O.A. No.051/00027/2014 is
concerned, submission has been made that the
respondents-Original Applicants were not the party in
the original application, as such they are not entitled to
any further financial up-gradation under MACP scheme.
52. Learned CGC appearing for the petitioners-railway
has laid much emphasis that some other person
employed as Guard have got benefit of MACP Scheme in
Grade pay of 4600/-, 4800/- by virtue of order passed
by Hon’ble CAT upheld up-to Hon’ble Apex Court. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3328-3329/2018
with analogous cases, Court vide its judgment dated
27.03.2018 has held that the employee are not entitled to
Grade pay higher than what they may get on actual
promotion in hierarchy.
53. On the backdrop of aforesaid admitted factual
aspect and case laws, this Court has proceeded to
examine legality and proprieyty of the impugned order
passed by the tribunal but before entering into the
legality and propriety of the impugned order, question
which requires consideration is:
Page | 21
2026:JHHC:11678-DB“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
case of the applicants, the respondents herein, is covered by
the judgment passed by the tribunal in O.A. No. 1286 of
2013 [Mukti Singha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors], relating
to Nurse Cadre, being affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No. 3328-3329/2018, emphasis upon which the
petitioners-railway has given; or is covered by the order
passed by the tribunal in OA No.051/00027/2014, [Kawish
Kr. & Ors. Vrs. UOI & Ors], which has taken care of the order
passed by the tribunal at Allahabad and Ernakulam Bench
and being affirmed up-to Hon’ble Apex Court, emphasis upon
which the applicant-respondents?”
54. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issues,
needs to refer herein the power which is to be exercised by
the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of order
passed by the tribunal, as per the ratio laid down by
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs.
Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261
particularly paragraph 99, wherein it has been held that
the High Court is having power of judicial review to look
into the legality and propriety of the order of the tribunal to
the extent that if the order passed by the tribunal suffers
from any perversity or the order is passed without
following the principles of natural justice or there is error
Page | 22
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
apparent on the face of order. For ready reference,
paragraph 99 of the judgment is quoted as under:
“99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that
clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-
B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High
Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and
32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of
the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other
legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-
A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be
unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High
Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the
inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this
jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals
may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers
conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution.
The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-
B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test
the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules.
All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to
scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within
whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The
Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first
instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have
been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to
directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they
question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the
legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is
challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional
and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.”
55. The power of judicial review has also been deliberated by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court, which is to be considered while
exercising the said power only to the extent that if any
Page | 23
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
order is being passed found to be having error on the face
of the order or without jurisdiction or suffers from
perversity. The error apparent on the face of the order
means that if the order appears on its face having with
error, then only the power of judicial review is to be
exercised.
56. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of West
Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul
Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39, has held at paragraph-30
that the power of judicial review must be exercised by
the Court after determining that the impugned is vitiated
by an error apparent on the face of the record and not
the same has been established by a process of reasoning.
Paragraph-30 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred
as under:
“30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is
to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an
apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a
decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the
record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the
record or whether the error requires examination or
argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by
a process of reasoning, on points where there may
reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error
on the face of the record, as held by this Court in
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde
v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137] . —
.”
Page | 24
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
57. In the case of T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa and Anr.,
(1955) 1 SCR 250, their Lordship have held that the patent
error in a decision can be corrected by writ of certiorari,
when it is manifested by the error apparent on the face of
the proceedings. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment is quoted hereunder:
“11. … An error in the decision or determination itself
may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must
be a manifest error apparent on the face of the
proceedings e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or
disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a
patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not
a mere wrong decision. ….”
58. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal position
it is evident that the power of judicial review can be
exercised, if error on the face of the order impugned,
challenged under the Article 226 of Constitution of India,
appears to be there.
59. Much emphasis has been laid down by learned
CGC appearing for the petitioners-railways on the
judgment dated 27.03.2018 passed by Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 3328-3329/2018 with
analogous cases, wherein it has been held that the
employee are not entitled to Grade pay higher than what
they may get on actual promotion in hierarchy.
60. This Court in order to delve into the issue has gone
into the factual aspect involved in the said case i.e.,
Page | 25
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
order passed by the CAT in Original Application No.
1286 of 2013, wherefrom it is evident that the applicant
has made out the case that the applicant, namely, Smt.
Mukti Singha and others, who were working as Chief
Matron in the B.R.Singh Hospital, Eastern Railway. She
had received two promotions in her career and the 3rd
MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- was awarded to
her from 01.09.08. It is alleged that the respondents
suddenly without any notice or giving any opportunity
for submission of representation ventilating their
grievances issued order dated 23.8.13, intended to refix
the pay of the applicant in PB-3 with grade Pay
Rs.5400/-.
61. Ground has been taken that similarly situated
persons moved Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA
141/12 [Delhi Nurses Union (Registered) Hq. Dr. Ram
Monohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi & Ors. -vs. Union
of India & Ors.] which was allowed in favour of the
applicants by order dated 9.5.12 and the writ/appeal
filed against the said order by the respondents was
ultimately upheld in favour of the applicants by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of
India.
Page | 26
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
62. While the case of the respondents-railway in that
case was that the promotional hierarchy of the Railway
Nursing cadre of in the Eastern Railway, consists of the
following posts with pay-scale:
Sl. No. Category Pay Band Grade Pay
1. Staff Nurse Rs.9300-34800/- Rs. 4600/-
2. Nursing Sister Rs.9300-34800/- Rs. 4800/-
3. Chief Matron 15600-39100/- Rs. 5400/-
4. Assistant 15600-39100/- Rs. 5400/-
Nursing Officer
63. Further ground has been taken that the hierarchy
of the Nursing cadre in Government Hospitals at Delhi,
reference of which has been taken by the applicants , as
notified by the Ministry of Finance vide Gazette
Notification dated 29.8.08 is:
Sl.No. Category Pay Band Grade Pay
1. Staff Nurse Rs.9300-34800/- Rs. 4600/-
2. Nursing Sister Rs.9300-34800/- Rs. 4800/-
3. Assistant 15600-39100/- Rs. 5400/-
Nursing
Superintendent
4. Dy. Assistant 15600-39100/- Rs. 5400/-
Nursing
Superintendent
5. Nursing 15600-39100/- Rs. 6600/-
Superintendent
6. Chief Nursing 15600-39100/- Rs. 7600/-
Officer
Page | 27
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
64. It has been submitted that in Delhi, higher Grade
Pay of Rs.6600/- and Rs.7600/- is available in the
hierarchy of Nurses in Government Hospitals but the
Eastern Railway does not have such higher Grade Pay in
the Nursing cadre. Therefore, submission has been
made that this Original Application being devoid of any
merit is liable to be dismissed.
65. The learned tribunal, after hearing the parties, has
framed following issues, relevant of present lis, is quoted
as under:
I.Whether the benefits of MACP can be extended beyond the
hierarchy of the posts in the cadre and can be more than the
Grade Pay of promotional post?
II.Whether the case of Delhi Nurses Union can be applied to
the applicant who belongs to the Eastern Railway?
66. So far first issue i.e., Whether the benefits of MACP
can be extended beyond the hierarchy of the posts in the
cadre and can be more than the Grade Pay of promotional
post, is concerned, the learned tribunal has taken note
of the fact that the issue has already been decided by
Division Bench of CAT in OA No. 598 of 2019 [Mitali
Ghosh Vs. UOI & Ors] vide order dated 20.04.2015, and
there is nothing on record so that the judgment be
reversed, as such decided the issue against the
Page | 28
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
applicants. For ready reference, relevant portion of the
judgment is quoted as under:
“There is nothing on record that the above judgment
has been reversed in review by this Bench or set aside by
any higher forum and the above order has become final.
Judicial discipline does not permit us to change the above
order which decided that the MACP benefits cannot be more
than Rs.5400 as Grade Pay as ANO (Asstt. Nursing Officer)
which is promotional post to Chief Matron carries the Grade
Pay of Rs.5400/-.
Accordingly to the question of whether benefits
of MACP can be extended beyond the hierarchy of the post in
the cadre, the answer can never be other than in the
negative.
The Bench of this CAT have held in OA No.598/2014
(supra) that MACP benefit cannot be given at a Grade Pay
higher than the promotional posts or beyond promotional
hierarchy available in the cadre. This view was upheld by
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 3420/2010
(R.S.Sengar & Ors. -vs- UOI & Ors.) dated 4.4.2011 wherein
it has been hcld to put it pithily the MACP scheme requires
the hierarchy of Grade Pay to be adhered to and not
the Grade Pay in the hierarchy of posts.’xxx xxx xxx
Accordingly we conclude that Grade Pay of the
applicant should be fixed at Rs.5400/ – from 1.9.2008 and
not Rs.6600/. ….”
67. So far second issue i.e., Whether the case of Delhi
Nurses Union can be applied to the applicant who
belongs to the Eastern Railway, is concerned, relevant
portion of finding as has been given is quoted as under:
“In order to strengthen the arguments, the Id. Counsel for the
applicants has taken the support of the decision of thePage | 29
2026:JHHC:11678-DBHon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 24.8.12 rendered in the
case of Union of India –vs- Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.) &
Anr. In WP(C) No. 5146/2012. The direction in the above
judgment cannot be taken assistance of in the present cases
because the hierarchy in Nursing Cadre for the Dehi Nurses
Union, the Nurses of which are employed in the Central
Government Hospitals is different from the hierarchy of the
Nurses of the Eastern Railway. The promotional hierarchy of
the Railway Nursing cadre of Medical Department consists of
the following:
Staff Nurse GP Rs.4600
Nursing Sister : GP Rs.4800/-
Chief Matron GP Rs.5400/-
Assistant Nursing Sister: GP Rs.5400/-
There are no other designation of Nursing
Personnel n the Eastern railways. But in Government
Hospitals in Delhi there are two other designations carrying
GP Rs.6600/- and Rs.7600/-. The designations of structure
of Nursing Staff as per Finance Department’s Notification
dated29.8.2008 is as under:
Staff Nurse : GP Rs.4600/-
Nursing Sister : GP Rs.4800/-
Assistant Nursing Sister :GP Rs.5400/-
Deputy Nursing Sister : GP Rs.5400/-
Nursing Superintendent: GP Rs,6600/-
Chieg Nursing Officer : GP Rs,7600/-
Thus from the post of Assistant Nursing
Superintendent and Deputy Nursing Sister, higher posts are
available in the hierarchy with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- and
Rs.7600/- whereas, in the present cases hierarchy ends
with the post of ANO carrying the GP of Rs.5400/- and as
discussed earlier, the benefits of financial upgradation
cannot be higher than the benefit available on normal
promotions.”
Page | 30
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
68. In view of the finding so recorded by the tribunal,
the Original Application being OA No. 1286 of 2013 was
dismissed vide order dated 27th February, 2017.”
69. The applicants being aggrieved with the order
passed by the tribunal approached the Calcutta High
Court by filing W.P.C.T. No. 123 of 2017, which was
allowed holding as under:
“In our judgment dated 14th June, 2017 we have
decided the same issue as involved in the original
application being OA-1286 of 2013 and have held that the
benefits of MACP can be extended beyond the hierarchy of
the posts of the cadre and can be of a quantum more than
the Grade Pay of the promotional post and have observed
that the petitioners therein are entitled to the grant of third
financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of `6,600/- and the
respondents therein were directed to refund the amount as
withdrawn from the salary of the petitioners therein within a
period of four weeks.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27th February,
2017 passed in the original application, being OA-1286 of
2013, is set aside so far as the petitioner is concerned and
the respondents are directed to grant the benefits to the
petitioner as granted by our judgment dated 14th June, 2017
delivered in WPCT 98 of 2015 and other connected matters.
70. Aggrieved thereof, the Union of India through
Railways approached Hon‟ble Apex Court by filing Civil
Appeal No. 3321 of 2018 and other analogous cases,
which was allowed vide order dated 27th March, 2018
up-holding the order passed by the tribunal and it has
been held as under:
Page | 31
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
5. 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 therein for interpretation of MACP.
Moreover, clarification referred to above fully supports
this interpretation.
Accordingly, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the
appeals filed by the Union of India are allowed.
However, we make it clear that no payments already
made will be recovered from the respondents.
71. Now coming to the order/judgment, upon which
much emphasis has been laid down by learned counsel
for the respondents i.e., applicants of Original
Application No. 51/0027/2014, basis upon which the
impugned order has been passed by the learned tribunal
also requires to be discussed.
72. In Original Application No. 51/0027/2014 [Kawish
Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.], the applicants
were the Cadre of Guard, under the Division of Dhanbad
Division of East Central Railway.
73. In that Original Application, the applicants made
out the case that after formulation of the MACP Scheme,
the applicants were extended the benefits of the same
vide order dated 18.05.2010 in the scale of
Rs.4600/4800/-. However, in the light of Railway Board
letter dated 10.02.2011, they were informed that their
Page | 32
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
financial up-gradation was being reviewed.
Subsequently, vide different orders as contained in
Memo No.27.09.2011, the applicants were informed by
the office of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East
Central Railway, Dhanbad that financial up-gradation
granted to them under MACP order is being reviewed
and accordingly their pay shall be reviewed. Being
aggrieved thereof, the concerned applicants [Kawish
Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.] approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit
Bench, Ranchi. The said applicants have taken the
ground that similar financial up-gradation given to the
employees of Railways has been agitated before the
Ernakulam bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal as well as before the Allahabad Bench and
both the tribunals declared vide orders dated
22.02.2012 in O.A. No. 484 of 2011 and order dated
24.09.2012 in O.A. No. 1241 of 2011 respectively, the
action of the respondents-railway illegal and directed to
grant the up-gradation under the MACP Scheme.
74. In the said original application [Original
Application No. 51/0027/2014], the applicants have
also drawn attention to the judgment dated 25.02.2014
passed in O.A. No. 721 of 2012 of Tribunal of Patna
Page | 33
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
Bench and submission was made that the case of the
applicants stands on same footing.
75. The tribunal, taking into consideration the entire
gamut of the matter, allowed the Original Application
vide order dated 14th January, 2015, which was affirmed
up-to Hon‟ble Apex Court. The relevant paragraph of the
order dated 14th January, 2015, passed in OA No.
051/00027/2014 is quoted as under:
“5. In view of the above, this Tribunal holds that the prayer
of the applicants in this OA is both just and justifiable. As
such, reliefs prayed for in para 8 of this OA are allowed in
full. The Impugned orders referred to in paras 8 [a], [b] and
[c) are quashed and set aside. Further, the respondents are
directed to restore the financial upgradation granted under
MACP to the applicants within a period of three months from
the date of receipt /communication of this order. It is
reiterated that the ruling of this Tribunal is based on the
orders dated 22.02.2012 and 24.09.2012 passed by
Ernakularn Beach and Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in
similar matters; that these Rulings have stood the test of
time and scrutiny. That the decision of Hon’ble High Court,
Allahabad in CWJC No. 18244 of 2013, decided on
19.07.2013, stands testimony to this foundation.
6. In sum, this OA succeeds and stands disposed in terms of
above, with no order as to costs.”
76. From the case laws, as discussed above and as
cited by the parties, it is evident that emphasis upon
which has laid down by learned counsel for the writ
petitioners-railway i.e., on the judgment/order passed
by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3328-
Page | 34
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
3329/2018 with analogous cases, wherein the Hon‟ble
Court vide its judgment dated 27.03.2018 has held that
the employee are not entitled to Grade pay higher than
what they may get on actual promotion in hierarchy.
From the factual aspect involved in that case, it is
evident that the matter is of different cadre of Railways
i.e., of Nurse Cadre of Govt. Railway Hospital whereas
the present case relates to the Guard Cadre. From the
tabular chart, as depicted in the preceding paragraphs,
it is evident that on joining the post of Goods Guard
only one hierarchical promotional scale i.e., in the scale
of Rs. 4200 Grade pay has been shown for next three
hierarchical posts i.e., the post of Sr. Goods
Guard/Passenger Guard/Sr. Passenger Guard to
Mail/Express Guard.
77. The law is well settled that applicability of the judgment
depends upon facts governing each case. Reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75,
for ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment, is being quoted as under :
“47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any
decision must be understood in the background of the
facts of that case and the case is only an authority for
what it actually decides, and not what logically followsPage | 35
2026:JHHC:11678-DBfrom it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions
without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in
with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is
placed.”
78. Thus, the judgment cities by learned CGC
appearing for the petitioners will not at all applicable in
the case at hand, rather, the case law cited by the
respondents-applicants is applicable.
79. The issue, as framed by this Court is answered
against the petitioners-railways.
80. In Original Application OA No. 051/00027/2014,
the applicants had sought same and similar relief after
formulation of the MACP Scheme, the applicants were
extended the benefits of the same vide order dated
18.05.2010 in the scale of Rs. 4600/4800/-. However,
in the light of Railway Board letter dated 10.02.2011,
they were informed that their financial up-gradation was
re-casted/reviewed vide Memo No.27.09.2011. The said
applicants have taken the ground that similar financial
up-gradation given to the employees of Railways has
been agitated before the Ernakulam bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal as well as before the
Allahabad Bench and both the tribunals declared vide
orders dated 22.02.2012 in O.A. No. 484 of 2011 and
order dated 24.09.2012 in O.A. No. 1241 of 2011
respectively, the action of the respondents-railway illegal
Page | 36
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
and directed to grant the up-gradation under the MACP
Scheme. The said Original Application filed before the
Patna Bench was allowed and affirmed up-to Hon‟ble
Apex Court.
81. The original applicants, the respondents herein on
the strength of order passed in Original Applicants being
O.A. No. 051/00027/2014 filed Original Application
OA/051/01142/2019 before the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench,
Ranchi, which was allowed, which is impugned herein.
The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted as under:
“23 In view of the above mentioned letters it is evident
that the applicants are very much entitled for the MACP
and also in view that the other similarly situated
employees are getting benefit of the MACP in the Grade
Pay of 24600/4800 as may be applicable to them and
therefore the frivolous ground taken by the respondents
that since the applicants were not the party in the carlier
OA, as such, they are not entitled for the same relief does
not have any leg to stand in the eye of law.
24. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the relevant papers made available to us during
the pleadings by them.
25. It is noted that issues and facts in the present OA are
squarely covered with the order dated 1491.2015 paused
by this Tribunal i ΟΛ/051/00027/2014. The order dated
14.01.2015 passed in the said OA No. 27/2014 was
challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand
judicature at Ranchi in WP(S) 4754 of 2015 and the
Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said WP vide its order
dated 10.03.2016 paned by the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi. However, the Hon’ble SupremePage | 37
2026:JHHC:11678-DBCourt dismissed the said SLP vide its order dated
24.03.2017. Subsequently, the respondents filed Review
Petition (C) No. 386 of 2018 in SLP (C) No. 31519 of 2017
before the Hon hic Supreme Court and the said Review
Petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide its order dated 20.02.2018.
26. From the above, it is understood that order dated
14.01.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 27/2014
wherein the inves and facts an identical to the facts and
issues involved in the present OA acquires its finality.
This Tribunal holds that the prayer made in para 8 of the
OA of the applicants is just and justifiable
27.In view of the above, applicants are entitled to the
relief sought by them at pare & of the OA as mentioned in
para I above. Resultantly, Ietter/order dated 02.08.2019
signed by the St. Divisional Personnel Officer, East
Central Railway, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, whereby
and whereunder the benefits of the MACP to the Grade
Pay of Rs. 4600-4800 has been denied is quashed
Respondents are hereby directed to give benefit of MACP
to the Grade Pay of Rs 4600-4500 including other entire
consequential benefits to the applicants of thin OA on the
similar footing/lines as granted to the applicants of OA
No. 051/00027/2014.
28. OA is allowed and stands disposed of in terms of
above order, with no order as to costs.”
82. This Court, after discussing the aforesaid fact
coupled with the legal issues and adverting to the
finding recorded by the tribunal in the impugned
judgment, has found that the all aspects of the matter
has been taken into consideration by the tribunal and
thereafter the impugned order has been passed.
Page | 38
2026:JHHC:11678-DB
83. This Court, based upon the aforesaid consideration
made by the learned tribunal and the reason assigned
therein, is of the view that the order passed by the
learned tribunal cannot be said to suffer from error and
requires no interference, since it is not coming under
the fold of error apparent on the face of order.
84. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise
the power of judicial review so as to interfere with the
order passed by the learned tribunal.
85. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
dismissed.
86. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
21st April, 2026
A.F.R./Alankar/-
Uploaded on 21.04.2026
Page | 39
