it2025_00533 — Order, dated 8-2-2016 granted 3rd Financial upgradation in the PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 while Grade Pay earlier granted was ₹ 6,600. This order is challenged in this OA as the Grade Pay from ₹ 6,600 to ₹ 5,400. Tribunal after examining the case set aside the order, dated 8-2-2016 and directed the Respondents to grant the replacement of scale of ₹ 15,600 - 34,100 in PB-3 of Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 for the scale of ₹ 8,000 - 275 - 13,500, from th

IT Rules

Order, dated 8-2-2016 granted 3rd Financial upgradation in the PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 while Grade Pay earlier granted was ₹ 6,600. This order is challenged in this OA as the Grade Pay from ₹ 6,600 to ₹ 5,400. Tribunal after examining the case set aside the order, dated 8-2-2016 and directed the Respondents to grant the replacement of scale of ₹ 15,600 - 34,100 in PB-3 of Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 for the scale of ₹ 8,000 - 275 - 13,500, from the date of the applicant's eligibility for 2nd ACP and Grade Pay of ₹ 6,600 while granting 3rd ACP — This chunk discusses the dispute between the Applicants, who are Diploma Engineers associated with the Brahmaputra Board, and the Respondents regarding the financial upgradation under the MACP scheme... — Facts: There are six Applicants in this OA. The first Applicant is "Brahmaputra Board Diploma Engineers' Association" and others are its members. Applicants got 1st ACP in pay scale of ₹ 6,500 - 10,500 (pre-revised) in the rank of Assistant Engineer (Group-B). Thereafter on 31-8-2008, the Applicants got 2nd ACP to the next higher grade of Assistant Executive Engineer (Group-A) in the pay scale ₹ 8,000 - 275 - 13,500 (Pre-revised). After CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 came into force, the revised pay scale was ₹ 9,300 - 34,800 + 4,200 (G.P). As claimed by Applicants, 2nd ACP should have been revised to PB-3, ₹ 15,600 - 39,100 plus G.P. ₹ 5,400 because Assistant Executive Engineer is a Group 'A' post. Respondents initially vide order, dated 14-8-2004 granted the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP scheme in PB-3 of ₹ 15,600 - 39,100 with Grade Pay of ₹ 6,600. However by the impugned earlier order, dated 8-2-2016 reduced the G.P. to ₹ 5,400 instead of ₹ 6,600. Aggrieved by that revised reduced GP from ₹ 6,600 to ₹ 5,400, this OA is filed. Respondents justifies the reduction in GP in view of Para. 8.1 of the MACP Scheme. The Applicants are entitled to 2nd ACP in Pay Band (PB-2) with GP of ₹ 5,400. The said Para. 8.1 is reproduced. In view of the above submission, the question that arises in this case is, whether the pre-revised scale of ₹ 8,000 - 275 - 13,500 should be in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 or it is in PB-2 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400. This issue is settled by DoP&T by their clarification, dated 7-3-2011 which is reproduced. As per this clarification, "financial upgradation under ACPS was in promotional hierarchy. We are of the view that the pay fixation under MACPS in the pre-revised scale of ₹ 8,000 - 13,500 should be in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 which is to get confirmed from Department of Expenditure". This order, dated 7-3-2011 is issued by Section Officer concerned. The Department of Expenditure vide their order, dated 27-5-2011 confirmed the above clarification which is extracted in the judgment and signed by Under Secretary. Discussing the contention of the Respondents, the Principal Bench of the CAT, Delhi vide their order, dated 21-11-2014 passed in O.A. No. 2498 of 2012 decided. Para. 6 of the decision is reproduced.

IT Rules

Order, dated 8-2-2016 granted 3rd Financial upgradation in the PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 while Grade Pay earlier granted was ₹ 6,600. This order is challenged in this OA as the Grade Pay from ₹ 6,600 to ₹ 5,400. Tribunal after examining the case set aside the order, dated 8-2-2016 and directed the Respondents to grant the replacement of scale of ₹ 15,600 - 34,100 in PB-3 of Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 for the scale of ₹ 8,000 - 275 - 13,500, from the date of the applicant's eligibility for 2nd ACP and Grade Pay of ₹ 6,600 while granting 3rd ACP — This chunk discusses the dispute between the Applicants, who are Diploma Engineers associated with the Brahmaputra Board, and the Respondents regarding the financial upgradation under the MACP scheme... — Facts: There are six Applicants in this OA. The first Applicant is "Brahmaputra Board Diploma Engineers' Association" and others are its members. Applicants got 1st ACP in pay scale of ₹ 6,500 - 10,500 (pre-revised) in the rank of Assistant Engineer (Group-B). Thereafter on 31-8-2008, the Applicants got 2nd ACP to the next higher grade of Assistant Executive Engineer (Group-A) in the pay scale ₹ 8,000 - 275 - 13,500 (Pre-revised). After CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 came into force, the revised pay scale was ₹ 9,300 - 34,800 + 4,200 (G.P). As claimed by Applicants, 2nd ACP should have been revised to PB-3, ₹ 15,600 - 39,100 plus G.P. ₹ 5,400 because Assistant Executive Engineer is a Group 'A' post. Respondents initially vide order, dated 14-8-2004 granted the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP scheme in PB-3 of ₹ 15,600 - 39,100 with Grade Pay of ₹ 6,600. However by the impugned earlier order, dated 8-2-2016 reduced the G.P. to ₹ 5,400 instead of ₹ 6,600. Aggrieved by that revised reduced GP from ₹ 6,600 to ₹ 5,400, this OA is filed. Respondents justifies the reduction in GP in view of Para. 8.1 of the MACP Scheme. The Applicants are entitled to 2nd ACP in Pay Band (PB-2) with GP of ₹ 5,400. The said Para. 8.1 is reproduced. In view of the above submission, the question that arises in this case is, whether the pre-revised scale of ₹ 8,000 - 275 - 13,500 should be in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 or it is in PB-2 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400. This issue is settled by DoP&T by their clarification, dated 7-3-2011 which is reproduced. As per this clarification, "financial upgradation under ACPS was in promotional hierarchy. We are of the view that the pay fixation under MACPS in the pre-revised scale of ₹ 8,000 - 13,500 should be in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 which is to get confirmed from Department of Expenditure". This order, dated 7-3-2011 is issued by Section Officer concerned. The Department of Expenditure vide their order, dated 27-5-2011 confirmed the above clarification which is extracted in the judgment and signed by Under Secretary. Discussing the contention of the Respondents, the Principal Bench of the CAT, Delhi vide their order, dated 21-11-2014 passed in O.A. No. 2498 of 2012 decided. Para. 6 of the decision is reproduced.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text