TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntain identical questions of facts and law and therefore, they are being decided together by this common order. The facts are drawn from Special Civil Application No. 5868 of 2020 for the purpose of adjudication, where the challenge is made to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal 22.09.2017 in Original Application No. 133 of 2017. 3. The petitioners herein are serving as a Superintendent / Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. They since apprehended the withdrawal of the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPs hereinafter) to the grade of Rs. 6600/- along with recovery process being initiated by the authority, they have chosen to move the original a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aside the decision of the present respondent to withdraw the benefit of 2nd MACP originally granted to the present applicants. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondents herein to restore the benefit of 2nd MACP of placing the present applicants in Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-3 with effect from the original date of such grant. (D) Be pleased to quash and set aside Para 8.1 of Annexure 1 of OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19th May 2009 (Annex. A1) and further be pleased to declare the same to be Ultra-vires the MACP Scheme as well as the 6th Pay Commission's Recommendations. (E) Be pleased to quash and set aside Instruction dated 22.06.2015 issued by the Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, CBEC, New Delhi under F.No. Coord/Expdt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court and the same was rejected and the decision of the Tribunal had been upheld. 5.1. Aggrieved by the same, the Union had approached the Apex Court by way of SLP (CC) No. 15396 of 2015. The same was heard and SLP was dismissed without any observations. 5.2. Yet another direct recruit Inspector of Central Excise in the year 1982 approached the Madras Bench by way of O.A. No, 675 of 2013 seeking fixation of his pay under 3rd MACP in the grade pay of Rs. 6600/- on completion of 30 years of his service which was dismissed. 6. When approached before the Madras High Court, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Tribunal and in light of the conflicting views taken by the different bench and in absence of clear cut directions from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the O.A., essentially because the very issue was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21830 of 2014 in case of Union of India and Others vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair along with other five SLPs. The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in case of Union of India vs. Raj Pal in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7467 of 2013 decided on 15.04.2013 which upheld the interpretation in favour of employee which was stayed by the Apex Court. On regarding the conflicting views of the different High Court, the Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court which chose not to entertain the O.A. of the employees since the matter was pending for consideration before the Apex Court, however, no other aspect on merit wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented and there is nothing to show that the scheme is arbitrary or unjust, warranting interference. Without considering the advantages in the MACP scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the government's policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal's case, therefore, the Apex Court did not sustain the judgment and orders of the High Court in M.V.Mohanan's case and quashed and set aside the same. 10.1. While so holding, the Apex Court also noticed at para 47, 48 and 49 certain anomalies on implementation of the MACP scheme which have been brou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent views by different High Courts. The issues raised before the Tribunal in all these original applications concern the interpretation and clarification of grant of 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP to the superintendents by placing them in pay band- III with grade pay of 6600/- who were granted non-functional grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in pay band- II. 14. This Court notices that in case of Union of India vs. M.V.Mohanan Nair delivered on 05.03.2020, the Apex Court has upheld the Delhi High Court's view in case of Union of India vs. All India CGHS Employees Association, which upheld the clarificatory communication choosing not to interfere with the policy. We are conscious that the Tribunal has followed the Delhi High Court on la....