Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J).
1. The commonality of questions of facts and law involved in these two Original Applications allows us to pronounce a common order, with the consent of the parties.
2. For the facility of reference facts have been taken from O.A.No. 1252-PB-2012 (Hans Raj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others). The applicant No.1 joined service as Mazdoor on 4.6.1973 and promoted as MPA on 1.8.1985 in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 and similarly, applicant no. 2 was appointed as Mazdoor on 4.1.1997 and promoted as MPA on 1.10.1985 in the pay scale of Rs.260-4000. The Government introduced Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short ACP) on 9.8.1999 under which employees who had completed 12 and 24 years of service, without getting any promotion, were to be granted financial up-gradations. The applicants were granted 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 on completion of 24 years of service in 1999 and 2001 respectively. The ACP Scheme was substituted by a new MACP Scheme applicable w.e.f. 1.9.2008, under which one was entitled to three financial up-gradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. The Government issued an O.M. No.35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 9.9.2010 clarifying that the upgradation under MACPS is to be granted in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of recommended revised pay band and grade pay as prescribed in the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The claim of the applicants is that they were granted revised pay band of Rs.5200-20200 + Rs.2400 a grade pay, in lieu of pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. On grant of MACP-III, their were placed in the Pay Band-I Rs.5200-20200+ GP Rs.2800 only against pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/Rs.5000-8000, whereas they are entitled to pay band-2 of Rs.9300-34800+GP Rs.4200 against pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. Such kind of pay fixation has taken place in case of number of persons, as per order dated 31.12.2011 (Annexure A-5), but the applicants have not been granted such benefit.
3. The respondents have filed a reply to oppose the claim of the applicants.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter.
5. The precise plea of the applicants is that their claim is squarely covered by the decision/clarification dated 9.9.2000 (A-2) to which the respondents have not replied to specifically and have mentioned vaguely that they have followed the DoPT instructions. Apparently, the respondents have not considered the case of the applicants in terms of the clarification under reference and thus unless the respondents are out with their stand on an issue raised by the applicants, a court of law would not be able to adjudicate upon the same.
6. These cases are thus disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of proper grade pay with reference to hieratical promotional scales in terms of the clarification dated 9.9.2000 (A-2) as also the plea of identical placement of their colleagues named in the O.A. who have been given such benefits and pass a reasoned and speaking order, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the applicants are found entitled to the benefit the same be released to them else the orders so passed be duly communicated to the applicants in writing. If the deliberation goes against their interests, they would be at liberty to approach the competent forum for redressal of their grievance, as per rules and law.