UNION OF INDIA Vs. U.H.YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.Dhaval N. Vakil, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents employees in all these writ petitions.

(2.) Challenge in this writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the common order dated 31/3/2017 passed in Original Application Nos.85/2017, 86/2017, 87/2017, 88/2017, 89/2017, 90/2017, 91/2017 and 92/2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, whereby, orders passed by the railway authorities - petitioners herein, denying the benefits of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short "MACP Scheme") to the respondents herein - employees came to be set aside by the tribunal and the tribunal further declared that the date shown under the caption as "3rd promotion" in the statement particularized at paragraph 10 of the order shall be treated as "2nd promotion". The respondents herein - railway authorities were further directed to extend benefits of third financial upgradation reckoning that they were granted only two promotions and second promotion is on 01/11/2003, as per their own statement, as soon as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of the order.

(3.) Ms.Archana Amin, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that all the respondents herein - employees in the writ petitions were initially appointed as Khalasi in or around the month of November, 1981. Thereafter, within a period of 10 years from the original appointment, they were promoted to the post of Ticket Collector on or around 30/01/1991 and thereafter again within a period of 10 years from the date of the first promotion and within a period of 20 years from the date of the first promotion, again granted second promotion as Senior Ticket Collector on or around 05/01/1994 and again within a period of 10 years from the grant of second promotion and within a period of 30 years from the initial appointment, the concerned employee were granted the third promotion on or around 01/11/2003 as Head Ticket Collector. Therefore, in view of three promotions within a period of 30 years of total service, benefit of MACP Scheme cannot be given and our attention was also invited to the MACP Scheme and relevant Clauses Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and Illustration given in Clauses 28(A) and 28(B), particularly Clause 28(B), based on which, the tribunal has given the direction to the railway authorities in the impugned order.