Allahabad High Court
UNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERSversusGYAN PRAKASH TIWARI
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as there is no reason to differ from the decisions of the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court upholding the CAT order.
Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that granted the respondent a third MACP benefit. The CAT had relied on a Cuttack Bench decision (O.A. No. 485 of 2021) which was subsequently upheld by the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition against it. The High Court noted that the same factual and legal issues had already been decided by higher courts, including its own earlier dismissal of a similar writ (Writ‑A No. 14035 of 2024). Relying on the principle of stare decisis, the Court found no ground to depart from those precedents. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of substance.
Issues considered
- Whether the Allahabad High Court can set aside the CAT order granting the third MACP in light of the Cuttack Bench, Orissa High Court, and Supreme Court decisions upholding that order
- Whether the petition raises any new legal question warranting a departure from the established precedent
Subjects
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- MACP
- writ petition
- precedent
- judicial review
- special leave petition
- high court
- order dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7289 of 2026
Union of India and 4 others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Gyan Prakash Tiwari
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.P. Singh, A.S.G.I., Vivek Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shyamal Narain, Manoj Kumar
Dhrubvanshi
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 12.01.2026 passed in O.A.
No. 591 of 2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad whereby the original application filed by the
respondent has been allowed and the relief of grant of 3rd MACP has
been granted.
2. The Tribunal while passing the judgment, relied on the order passed by
the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 485 of 2021, decided on
15.11.2023, which was upheld by the Orissa High Court and Special
Leave Petition against the same has been dismissed. The Tribunal also
noticed that in similar case being O.A. No. 1125 of 2021, the Tribunal
had passed an order on 14.12.2023 against which , Writ-A No. 14035 of
2024 was dismissed by this Court on 09.05.2025 and the order passed by
the Tribunal has been implemented.
3. Counsel for the respondent, with reference to the orders passed by the
Cuttack Bench, Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court as well as this
Court in Writ-A No. 14035 of 2024, submitted that the matter is squarely
covered.
4. Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute the said facts.
5. In Writ-A No. 14035 of 2024, this Court observed as under:-
WRIA No. 7289 of 2026
2
"1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in
Original Application ('OA') No. 330/01125 of 2021 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('Tribunal')
whereby the OA filed by the respondent has been allowed.
2. The OA was filed seeking the petitioners to treat the services of the
respondent, spent on training after appointment, as qualifying service for
the purpose of granting 3rd MACP with all consequential benefits
accrued thereof, i.e., fixation of the arrears alongwith interest. The
Tribunal, after hearing the parties, referred to an order passed by the
Cuttack Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 260/00485
of 2021 East Coast Railway Engineers Association and others Vs. Union
of India and others, decided on 15.11.2023 and came to the conclusion
that the issue raised was squarely covered by order in that case and
consequently, allowed the OA filed by the respondent and the petitioners
were directed to reconsider and decide the claim for grant of benefits of
financial upgradation, based on the said judgement.
3. When the matter came up before this Court, submissions were made
that the writ petition filed against the order passed by the Cuttack Bench
of the Tribunal was pending consideration before the Orissa High Court,
based on which, the matter was adjourned.
4. Counsel for the respondent submits that Writ Petition (C) No.17872 of
2024, filed by Union of India against the order dated 15.11.2023 passed
by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal, has been dismissed by the Orissa
High Court on 27.03.2025 upholding the judgement passed by the
Tribunal.
5. Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute the said aspect
of the matter.
6. In view of the above fact situation, wherein the OA was allowed by
relying on order passed by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal and against
the said order, a Division Bench of Orissa High Court has dismissed the
writ petition, we do not find any reason to take a view different from what
has been taken by the Orissa High Court.
WRIA No. 7289 of 2026
3
7. Consequently, the petition has no substance, the same is, therefore,
dismissed."
6. Additionally, now against the order passed by the Orissa High Court,
Special Leave Petition No. 24399 of 2025 has been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.08.2025.
7. In view of the above fact situation, we do not find any reason to
entertain the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
May 14, 2026
RK/AKShukla
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…