CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.304/10
DATED THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE, 2011
HON'BLE SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
Aged 47 years,
working as Helper,
Bangalore - 560 006 ..... Applicant
(By Shri A.R.Holla, Advocate)
1.The Chief Executive Officer,
(Broadcasting Corporation of India),
New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Director General,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3.The Senior Director,
Bangalore - 560 006. .... Respondents
(By Shri M.Vasudeva Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A):
This matter, moved under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act on 06.07.2010, pertains to the question of giving benefit of MACP Scheme.
2. Both the counsels have argued their points. at length. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement in para - (a) of Annexure - A4 is a mistaken statement and has also been admitted by the respondents in their reply at para - 4. As far as para - b on Annexure -A4 is concerned, it deals with PCR No.13722/2008 which is pending before the Hon'ble Court of VIIIth ACMM, Bangalore in which the criminal charge is for insulting the national flag. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) Scheme became operational with effect from 01.09.2008. On that date, both the applicant as well as his junior Shri G.Varadan had become eligible for grant of first and second ACP and in fact the junior Mr Varadan has actually received the order dated 04.03.2010 as seen at Annexure - A2, . in which his pay has been fixed as on 01.09.2008 after adjusting first and second ACPs. Since the PCR No.13722/08 arose on 11.09.2008 i.e. after the date of eligibility for second ACP,. hence, it is claimed that the applicant is entitled to the same benefit as his junior with effect from 01.09.2008, on which date there was no criminal charge against him.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that though the MACP has become operational with effect from 01.09.2008, the scheme was actually announced in 2009 and the scheme contemplates that MACP can not be given as a matter of routine but is subjected to factors for ineligibility such as a pending criminal case. The DPC considers the due cases in light of this. It is for this reason that the Screening Committee (DPC) has examined his case and kept it in a sealed cover eventhough admittedly there was no criminal charge pending against him as on 01.09.2008.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that the first of all, the DPC is duty bound to appreciate the fact that on the date when Scheme benefits became due, there was no criminal charge. Secondly, the applicant is only a Group - D employee working as helper and the charge against him in PCR No.13722/08 which pertains to insult of the national flag was dropped by the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore as well as the Police for the reason of being not substantiable, however the Hon'ble Court VIIIth ACMM Bangalore has rejected the plea of non - substantiability. The learned counsel further points out that this charge does not involve the question of moral turpitude or financial dishonesty and therefore it is incumbent upon DPC to consider the nature of charges before taking the decision on sealed cover procedure. The learned counsel argued that this ground may also considered in addition to the main plea that there was no case pending against the applicant as on 01.09.2008 which is the date of entitlement of benefit under MACP Scheme.
5. After considering the arguments of both the learned counsels we quash Annexure -A4 and direct that the DPC may reconsider the case by examining all the aspects mentioned at para 3 supra. No order as to costs. The respondents may complete this exercise within 2 months, from receiving this order.
(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)