CDRA Requests PM to withdraw SLP against MACP on Promotional Hierarchy
National Head Quarters
Confederation of Defence Recognised Associations (CDRA)
Recognised by Govt of India
Patro: Sh Satyavrat Chaturvedi, M.P.
Convener: Sh Surinder Singh
Legal Adviser: Sh RR Pashine
Representing the Service Associations recognized Under Ministry of Defence
H.No. D-499, Street No. 14,
Railway Road, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi – 45
President : S.K. Mann
Gen Secy : Ved Pal Yadav
Ref No. HQ/CDRA/298
Dated:- 12th Apr 2016
Shri, Narender Modi Ji,
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
South Block, New Delhi
Regarding financial Up-gradations under MACP as per hierarchy to Subordinate Employees of MoD – Request for withdrawal of SLP filed by UOI in Hon’ble Supreme Court
1. With profound regards we on behalf of more than 50 recognized associations functioning in various directorates of MoD request your honour for redressal of our genuine and justified grievances with regard to the injustice about the financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme inflicted upon the weaker section of the subordinate employees by the Govt of India during 2009 quite wrongly and against all the canon of justice. During the regime of NDA Govt. heated by the then Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihar Vajpayee Ji an ACP Scheme to the employees of group B. C & D was granted in the form of two financial up-gradations in the promotional hierarchy after completion of 12 & 24 years service as a ‘safety net’ to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation due to inadequate promotional avenues. Alas! The above just and genuine scheme was ruthlessly distorted and destroyed during 2009 by the then UPA Govt by converting it into the MACP Scheme on Grade pay basis instead of the promotional hierarchy as it was in ACPS, resulting into the great detriment and huge financial and terminal benefit loss to the employees.
2. It is submitted with respect that the said scheme of MACPs was switched over from existing ACPS without having any consideration of anomalous consequences and awful repercussions in the matter of financial discriminations. With a view to further clarify the anomaly of this scheme it would be imperative to quote an example here that a Junior Engineer in MES who complete his 24 years service on 31-08-2008 shall be granted the 2rd up-gradation in pay scale of Executive Engineers i.e. in the PB-3 (15600-39100) + Grade Pay 6600/- in the erstwhile ACPs, where as the another Junior Engineers having completed the 30 years on 01-09-2008 is eligible for 3rd up-gradation in PB-2 (9300-34800) + Grade Pay 5400/- under the modified ACPs resulting in huge loss at least Rs. 20,000/- per month even after putting 6 years extra period of his services. Subsequently these anomalous and unjust projections were consequently brought into the notice of the authorities and persuaded vigorously but all in vain despite their admission about the said anomalies.
3. Finding no way out, the employees from different departments of Central Govt including MoD sought for the legal intervention by filing the petitions in the Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh, New Delhi, Guwahati, Calcutta and Ernakulum etc. Wherein all the judgments were in favour of the employees directing the respondents to grants the MACPs in promotional hierarchy. In the appeals filed by the Govt. in the Hon’ble High Courts the orders of the various CAT stands upheld Unfortunately, the Govt. further preferred to file the SLPs in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the orders of the Hon’ble High Courts admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court would take a considerable time to deliver its judgment on the said SLPs. Such delay to deliver the justice shall adversely affect a large chunk of the poor employees who are not in position to contest the case in Supreme Court owing to their financial constraints. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that in case of service matters where the High Courts and benches of CAT delivered the judgements in favour of the employees, no appeal in the Supreme Court by the Govt. is desirable.
4. We would also like to draw your kind attention to the fact that earlier the status of CAT remained equal to High Court and an employee had to contest his case at two stages only i.e. in CAT and then in Hon’ble Supreme Court but later on the channel contesting the case became CAT then High Court and then further Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court that way is quite genuine.
5. In view of the above mentioned circumstances we pray before your esteemed authority to kindly be graciously pleased to direct the concerned department of Govt, of India for withdrawal of SLPs from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to provide the relief to the weaker sections of the society and to meet the ends of justice as a special case. We do hope that your kind action in the matter will certainly bring the good days for the subordinate employees of the Central Govt.