Lateral Movement Between Posts Carrying Same Grade Pay Not A Promotion: Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The respondents started their careers as Assistant Loco Pilots (ALPs) with the South East Central Railway in 1995. They were promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot. Further they were promoted to Loco Pilot (Goods) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme was introduced to alleviate career stagnation. Therefore, the Railway Administration granted the first financial upgradation to employees after they completed 10 years of service as Loco Pilot (Goods) in 2016.

Subsequently, the employees applied for an additional financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. The Railway rejected the application, contending that the employees had already availed two functional promotions in their career. Therefore, they were not eligible for further MACP benefits.

Aggrieved, the employees challenged the rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal allowed their application and directed the Railway Administration to grant the MACP benefit. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's order, the Railway filed the writ petition before the High Court.

The Railway Administration argued that the MACP Scheme provides financial benefits based on the Grade Pay Hierarchy rather than the Promotional Hierarchy. The Grade Pay Hierarchy applies uniformly to all employees, while the promotional hierarchy varies across departments. Granting financial up-gradation based on the promotional hierarchy would cause discrepancies among employees from different cadres. The respondents already have received two promotions in their career in the same grade pay, therefore they had exhausted the promotions for MACP.

On the other hand, the employees argued that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the MACP Scheme to grant them relief. They further supported the Tribunal's order by citing judgments from the High Courts of Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala, which had ruled in favour of employees in identical circumstances.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the financial upgradation should be based solely on the hierarchy of Grade Pays, which remained unchanged for the employees after they reached the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. Relying upon the case of UOI vs. K. Bhaskaran, it was held that the movement of an employee from a post like Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard within the same Grade Pay, constitutes a lateral induction. It is not a promotion for the purpose of the MACP Scheme.

Hence, it was held by the court that the employees' career movements within the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- should similarly be treated as lateral inductions.

It was further noted that the Railways had failed to substantiate their claim that such movements were considered functional promotions under the relevant Service Rules. They also failed to prove that such movements carried distinct financial or hierarchical benefits that would preclude MACP eligibility.

Therefore, it was concluded by the Division Bench that the employees' career progression involving movements within the same Grade Pay, did not amount to promotions that would deny them the financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

Hence, the Tribunal's order directing the grant of MACP upgradation to the employees was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Union of India & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar Rathore & Ors.

Case No. : WPS No. 1833 of 202

Counsel for the Petitioners : Palash Tiwari, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : AV Shridhar, Advocate