Allahabad High Court

RAHUL MADANversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 9 March 2026
Bench: ARUN BHANSALI KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Holding

The petitioner had only two regular promotions and is entitled to the MACP Grade Pay of Rs.4600 (Level‑7).

Summary

The petitioner, a government fitter appointed in 1997, sought the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4600 (Level‑7) under the Minimum Alternate Cost of Pay (MACP) scheme, contending that he had only two regular promotions and thus was eligible. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, holding that he had received three promotions, including a disputed promotion from Fitter Grade‑II to Fitter Grade‑I. The High Court examined the chronology of appointments, noting that the petitioner was selected as Junior Engineer (Fitter) in February 2006 and, on the same day he joined that post (22‑03‑2007), an order promoting him to Fitter Grade‑I was issued, which the Court found untenable because he was already occupying a higher‑level post. Consequently, the Court concluded that the alleged promotion to Fitter Grade‑I must be ignored, leaving the petitioner with only two genuine promotions, making him eligible for MACP. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and the earlier departmental orders, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for the Grade Pay within six weeks. The petition was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to MACP Grade Pay of Rs.4600 (Level‑7) based on the number of regular promotions he received.
Whether the promotion from Fitter Grade‑II to Fitter Grade‑I dated 22‑03‑2007 is a valid regular promotion.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for MACP.

Subjects

MACP
grade pay
promotion hierarchy
ex‑cadre posting
Central Administrative Tribunal
service law
government employee benefits

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7861 of 2025

Rahul Madan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Union of India and 3 others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Gautam, Sameer Kumar Rai,
Srishti Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Gopal Verma, Kailash
Prakash Pathak

Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 05.04.2025 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original
Application ('OA') No. 1221 of 2019 whereby, the OA filed by the
petitioner seeking setting aside of the orders dated 30.08.2019 and
08.06.2018 and a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant
of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- (Level-7) of MACP along with all
consequential benefits, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Fitter Grade-III with the
respondents on 16.08.1997. On 12.05.2004, he was granted first
promotion to the post of Fitter Grade-II. While the petitioner was working
as Fitter Grade-II, a selection process was initiated for the Ex-cadre post
of Instructor and after the petitioner was found suitable, he was posted as
TTC/Instructor 'B' on 18.01.2006. Whereafter, the petitioner qualified
Intermediate Apprentice Mechanic (IAM) examination and was posted as
Junior Engineer (Fitter) in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on 22.03.2007
and was sent for training for a period of 18 months, which was later
reduced to 12 months. The grievance raised was that the petitioner was
not accorded promotion as per MACP Policy, representations were made,
which were rejected.

3. The claim made by the petitioner was contested by the respondents
with the submissions that the petitioner was appointed as Fitter Grade-III
WRIA No. 7861 of 2025
2

on 16.08.1997. He was promoted to the post of Fitter Grade-II on
12.05.2004 and by order dated 22.03.2007, he was promoted as
Technician Fitter Grade-I and as such, once he was posted as Junior
Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, he had earned three
promotions and was, therefore, not entitled for the benefit of MACP.

4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, quoting the rejection of the
representations, in a cursory manner observed that on close scrutiny of
entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioner
had got three promotions since joining the service and, therefore, he was
not entitled to any relief and consequently dismissed the OA. Feeling
aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

5. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was appointed on
16.08.1997 as Fitter Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. On
12.05.2004, he was promoted to the post of Fitter Grade-II in the pay
scale of 4000-6000, which was his first regular promotion. While working
as Fitter Grade-II, the petitioner was empanelled and posted as
TTC/Instructor 'B' (Ex-cadre) in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The said
posting was Ex-cadre and not part of the regular promotional hierarchy.

6. On 20.02.2006, the petitioner qualified the Intermediate Apprentice
Mechanic (IAM) Examination and was appointed as Junior Engineer
(Fitter) Level-6 in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 under the prescribed
promotional quota. It is claimed that the same was his second regular
promotion. On 06.03.2006, consequent to appointment as Junior Engineer
(Fitter), the petitioner was relieved from his original cadre to undergo
mandatory training of 18 months. On 27.01.2007, the training was
curtailed by competent authority by 6 months and as such on 21.03.2007,
the petitioner was relieved from training to join as Junior Engineer (Fitter)
Level-6, where he joined on 22.03.2007.

7. Submissions have been made that on 22.03.2007 itself, the order was
passed showing promotion to the petitioner to the post of Fitter Grade-I
(Level-5) even though he was already relieved from training and joined as
Junior Engineer (Fitter) on the said date.

8. The petitioner on completion of ten years became eligible for MACP
WRIA No. 7861 of 2025
3

and submitted representation, which was wrongly rejected by treating
purported promotion from Fitter Grade-II to Fitter Grade-I as one
additional promotion and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be
set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the order
impugned. In the counter affidavit, in paragraph no. 18, submissions have
been made that had the training not been curtailed, the petitioner would
have first been promoted to Fitter Grade-I and drawn the Pay Scale of Rs.
4500-7000/- during the remainder of his training and only thereafter
would have been posted as Junior Engineer and drawn the Pay Scale of
Rs. 5000-8000. Based on which, it is claimed that the order passed on
22.03.2007 according promotion from the post of Fitter Grade-II to Fitter
Grade-I, was his second promotion and then his posting as Junior
Engineer was his third promotion and, therefore, the Tribunal was
justified in dismissing the OA.

10. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.

11. The fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Fitter Grade-
III and was promoted to the post of Fitter Grade-II is not in dispute.
Whereafter, on petitioner qualifying the Intermediate Apprentice
Mechanic (IAM) Examination, was appointed a Junior Engineer in the
Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on 20.02.2006 and was sent for mandatory
training of 18 months, however, the training was reduced to 12 months
resulting the petitioner being accorded joining on the promoted post on
22.03.2007.

12. Once, the petitioner was accorded posting as Junior Engineer (Fitter)
on 22.03.2007, on the same day, another order was passed according him
promotion as Fitter Grade-I which is Level-05 post i.e. in the Pay Scale of
Rs. 4500-7000 whereas the post of Junior Engineer (Fitter) is Level-06
post in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The claim made by the
respondents that the promotion accorded on 22.03.2007 from the post of
Fitter Grade-II to Fitter Grade-I was the second promotion and the
promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Fitter) was the third promotion,
WRIA No. 7861 of 2025
4

is ex-facie incorrect as once the petitioner was selected to be appointed as
Junior Engineer (Fitter) on 20.02.2006, in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-
8000, he was not available in Fitter Grade-II to be promoted to Fitter
Grade-I and the exercise undertaken by the respondents was wholly
infructuous and cannot be used to claim that the petitioner was accorded
promotion from the post of Fitter Grade-II to Fitter Grade-I as on the date
of passing of the order, the petitioner was already posted as Junior
Engineer i.e. Level-06 posting whereas the Fitter Grade-I is Level-5
posting.

13. In that view of the matter, once the alleged promotion from Fitter
Grade-II to Fitter Grade-I is to be ignored, the petitioner in that case had
only got two promotions in his career i.e. from Fitter Grade-III to Fitter
Grade-II and from Fitter Grade-II to Junior Engineer (Fitter) based on his
qualifying the IAM examination and as a consequence was entitled for
grant of MACP.

14. Consequently, the rejection of the representations and dismissal of
OA, cannot be sustained.

15. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The orders
dated 30.08.2019 and 08.06.2018 passed by the respondents and the order
dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Tribunal are set aside.

16. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 (Level-7) of MACP along with all
consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of this
order.

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
March 10, 2026
Sandeep

Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…