AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Tejaswi Shukla and Ms.
Manju Pandey and Ms. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel for the respondent- Union of India.
Aggrieved by the order dated 17th October, 2014 passed in O.A. No. 67/2010(R) by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, [Circuit Bench at Ranchi, petitioners preferred this writ petition.
Petitioners had approached the learned C.A.T with a prayer to grant them the benefits of 3rd ACP under the MACP Scheme. The details of the applicants, including the date of joining and retirement are referred to at Para-2 of the impugned order and is quoted hereunder:
Sl. Name of the applicants
Date of Joining
Date of retirement No.
1 Nityanand Choudhary 03/11/66 31.08.2006
2 John Berekmans Soteng 01/01/73 30.04.2008
3 Magdakli Bodra 06/02/78 31.03.2008
4 Aloysia Bara 31.03.78 31.07.2008
5 Joyas Lakra 31.01.78 31.05.2008
6 Charwa Kujur 21.12.78 31.05.2006
Since, MACP Scheme was introduced with effect from 1 st September, 2008 as per office memorandum dated 19th May, 2009, the respondents resisted the prayer since all these applicants/petitioners have superannuated before the effective date i.e., 1st September, 2008. Learned C.A.T agreed with the view of the respondent-Union of India and held that petitioners are not entitled to get any benefit under the MACP Scheme having superannuated before the Scheme was brought into effect from 1st September, 2008.
Earlier, counter affidavit was filed by the Union of India on 18 th April, 2017. However, when the matter was taken up on 23rd September, 2020, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Balbir Singh Turn reported in (2018) 11 SCC 99 and submitted that it has been held therein that MACP Scheme is a part of the pay structure, which is applicable with effect from 1 st January, 2006 i.e., date of implementation of 6th Pay Revision.
Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, learned counsel for the union of India was asked to seek instruction with specific reference to the decision rendered in the case of Balbir Singh Turn (supra) and file a supplementary counter affidavit clarifying their stand in the matter by order dated 23rd September, 2020, which is quoted hereunder:
"Learned counsel Ms. Tejaswi Shukla appears on instructions of learned counsel for the petitioners on record and submits that legal representatives of deceased respondent no.2 are not willing to be substituted. Respondent no.2 was a proforma respondent. She seeks permission to delete the deceased respondent no.2 from the array of respondents in those circumstances.
Learned counsel for the other respondents do not object. Accordingly, respondent no.2 be deleted from the array of parties. Registry to carry out the deletion and renumber the rest of the respondents.
I.A. No.4786/2020 stands disposed of.
Ms. Tejaswi Shukla has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Balbir Singh Turn reported in (2018) 11 SCC 99 and submitted that the MACP scheme has been held to be part of the pay structure which is applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006 i.e. the date of implementation of the 6th pay revision. The impugned order of learned CAT runs counter to the legal position settled by the decision of the Apex Court.
She submits that respondents have been defending their decision not to grant the benefit of MACP to the applicants on the ground that they had superannuated between 01.01.2006 to 01.09.2008. Now by virtue of this decision the applicants would be at least entitled to the notional benefits of MACP, so far as the revision of their pay and consequent pension is concerned.
Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India submits that their counter affidavit was filed on 18th April 2017 itself. Therefore, it could not take into account the recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Balbir Singh Turn. She seeks three weeks' time to obtain instructions with specific reference to the decision cited above and, if necessary, file a supplementary counter affidavit clarifying their latest stand in the matter.
Let this case be listed in the reopening week after Dussehra vacation, so that the petitioners, if so advised, may file rejoinder thereto, in the meantime."
Learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Bakshi Vibha submits that despite repeated reminders, no fresh instructions have been furnished. As such, the matter can be disposed of in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, which is a declaration of law, so far as the applicability of the MACP Scheme is concerned from a particular date.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and circumstances noted above and the recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Balbir Singh Turn (supra). In the context of the facts of the present case, the issue relating to applicability of M.A.C.P Scheme stands answered by the Apex Court in the case of Balbir Singh Turn (supra) at para-6, which is reproduced hereunder:
The answer to this question will lie in the interpretation given to the Government Resolution, relevant portion of which has been quoted hereinabove. A bare perusal of Clause (i) of the Resolution clearly indicates that the Central Government decided to implement the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension with effect from 1-1-2006. The second part of the clause lays down that all allowances except the dearness allowance/relief will be effective from 1-9-2008. The AFT held1, and in our opinion rightly so, that the benefit of MACP is part of the pay structure and will affect the grade pay of the employees and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a part of allowances. The benefit of MACP if given to the respondents would affect their pension also.
That being the legal position, the respondents need to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioners and the proforma respondents, who were also applicants in the Original Application in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, [Circuit Bench at Ranchi] cannot stand. It is set aside. Respondents are directed to take fresh decision on the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and in view of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Balbir Singh Turn (Supra) by passing speaking order within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.