Allahabad High Court
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERSversusSUSHIL KUMAR SINGH AND 16 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's order granting financial upgradation.
Summary
The petition challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order granting financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme by counting 10, 20 and 30 year service periods. The Tribunal relied on a Cuttack Bench decision in East Coast Railway Engineers case to grant relief. The Union of India argued that the same relief had been rejected by the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court in several earlier matters, including the Akram Abdullah case. The High Court examined these precedents and found that the Tribunal’s order was consistent with the higher courts’ rulings. Consequently, the Court held there was no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme is valid in view of earlier judgments dismissing similar relief.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order based on precedent from the Orissa High Court and Supreme Court.
Subjects
- financial upgradation
- M.A.C.P. Scheme
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- writ petition
- precedent
- judicial review
- Orissa High Court
- Supreme Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11019 of 2026
Union of India and 3 others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sushil Kumar Singh and 16 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 06.01.2026 passed in
Original Application No. 154 of 2024 passed by Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the original application
filed by the respondents seeking grant of financial upgradation under
M.A.C.P. Scheme by counting the qualifying period of 10, 20 and 30
years from their initial date of joining.
2. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, relying on Cuttack Bench of the
Tribunal judgement in East Coast Railway Engineers and others vs.
Union of India : Original Application No. 260/00485/2021, allowed the
original application and granted the relief. Feeling aggrieved, the present
writ petition has been filed.
3. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the Tribunal has relied on
the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal for granting similar
relief, against which writ petition filed by the Union of India has been
dismissed by Orissa High Court and Special Leave Petition arising from
the order of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court has also been
dismissed and, therefore, as the respondents are similarly situated to all
those who have been granted relief, the petition deserves dismissal.
4. Further submissions have been made that in identical circumstances in
Union of India and 3 others vs. Akram Abdullah : Writ-A No.14035
of 2024, decided on 09.05.2025, this Court also decided similar issue
based on the decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and,
WRIA No. 11019 of 2026
2
therefore, also the petition deserves dismissal.
5. Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute that the issue
as raised in the present petition has been decided by the Cuttack Bench of
the Tribunal and challenge laid against the said order has been negated by
the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
7. The Tribunal has specifically referred to the order passed by the
Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal for granting the relief and admittedly, in
Union of India and others vs. East Coast Railway Engineers
Association : Writ Petition (C) No. 17872 of 2024, decided on
27.03.2025 by the Orissa High Court, the writ petition has been
dismissed.
8. Further, Special Leave Petition (C) No.24399 of 2025 arising from
the Division Bench Judgement of the Orissa High Court has been
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.08.2025.
9. Similarly, in the case of Akram Abdullah (supra), this Court has
upheld a similar order passed by the Tribunal.
10. In view of the overall fact situation, no case for interference with the
order passed by the Tribunal is made out. The petition has no substance,
the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
September 8, 2026
SL/Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
SHYAM LAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…