2026 INSC 739 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 1 of 61

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35363 OF 2025)

UNION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS

… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

HARBANS LAL VERMA … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. OF 2026)

@ DIARY NO.67055 OF 2025

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.11050 OF 2026)

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Leave granted.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 2 of 61

2. Although we are deciding the instant appeals

together because of the commonality of the

issues involved, the facts are being taken for the

sake of convenience and at the consent of the

counsel for both parties, who have submitted

their written submissions and even addressed

this Court from Harbans Lal Verma’s case i.e.,

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025.

3. This appeal, filed by the Union of India and

other Railway authorities under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India, assails the judgment

and order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature

for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 16939/2024. By the impugned

order, the High Court dismissed the writ

petition preferred by the Appellants and thereby

affirmed the orders of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench

(hereinafter, "the Tribunal"), passed in O.A. No.

468/2011 dated 11.07.2014 and O.A. No.

92/2015 dated 11.07.2024, which directed the

Appellants to extend the 2nd and 3rd financial

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 3 of 61

upgradations under the Modified Assured

Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter, "the

MACPS") to the Respondent, a retired

Mail/Express Guard, to Grade Pay Rs. 4600

and Grade Pay Rs. 4800 respectively.

4. The question which arises for consideration in

the present appeal is whether the promotions

earned by the respondent within the Guard

cadre are liable to be counted for the purpose of

financial upgradation under the MACPS and,

consequently, whether he is entitled to financial

upgradation beyond Grade Pay Rs.4200.

5. The Respondent, Harbans Lal Verma, joined the

Indian Railways as a Goods Guard on

13.08.1976 in the West Central Railway, Kota

Division, in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. On

13.03.1992, he was promoted to Passenger

Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200, which

was subsequently revised to Rs. 1400 -2600

with effect from 01.03.1993. Thereafter, on

22.06.1993, he was promoted to Mail/Express

Guard in the same revised scale of Rs. 1400-

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 4 of 61

2600, the highest post within the Guard cadre.

He occupied the post of Mail/Express Guard

from 22.06.1993 until his retirement on

superannuation on 31.03.2009, a period of

more than fifteen years, and his entire service

career of over thirty-two years was spent within

the Guard cadre.

6. The recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission resulted in revision of the pay

structure (hereinafter, "the Sixth CPC")

applicable to the Guard cadre. Prior to the Sixth

CPC, the Guard cadre comprised posts in

distinct and separately remunerated pre -

revised pay scales: Goods Guard was in the

scale of Rs. 4500-7000; Senior Goods Guard

and Passenger Guard were in the scale of Rs.

5000-8000; Senior Passenger Guard and

Mail/Express Guard were in the scale of Rs.

5500-9000. These three distinct scales,

representing different levels of pay progression

within the cadre, were compressed by the Sixth

CPC into two Grade Pays: Goods Guard was

placed in Pay Band PB-1 at Grade Pay Rs. 2800,

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 5 of 61

while every other Guard post, Senior Goods

Guard, Passenger Guard, Senior Passenger

Guard, and Mail/Express Guard was placed in

Pay Band PB-2 at the uniform Grade Pay of Rs.

4200. An allowance of Rs. 500 per month,

expressly not forming part of pay, was made

available to Mail/Express Guard in recognition

of the distinct functional responsibilities of that

terminal post. As a result, several posts within

the cadre came to carry the same Grade Pay of

Rs.4200.

7. It bears noting, however, that the convergence

of Grade Pay did not render the promotional

posts within the Guard cadre financially

identical. The Guard cadre is a running-duty

category whose members draw, as a significant

component of their monthly emolum ents,

running-duty allowances computed on the

basis of basic pay. Each promotion within the

cadre carried with it a promotional increment

resulting in an upward revision of basic pay,

which in turn enhanced all pay -linked

emoluments including running -duty

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 6 of 61

allowances. The Railway Board itself recognised

the distinct and progressively enhanced

character of the higher promotional posts by

issuing executive instructions sanctioning post-

specific additional allowances of Rs. 750 per

month plus Dearness Allowance for Senior

Passenger Guards and Rs. 1125 per month plus

Dearness Allowance for Mail/Express Guards

exclusively, in acknowledgment of the

significantly higher levels of operational

responsibility, safety exposure, and vigilance

obligations attached to those posts. The

cumulative effect of these benefits was that

gross monthly emoluments at the stage of

Mail/Express Guard were materially and

substantially higher than those at the entry

level of the promotional hierarchy within Pay

Band PB-2, notwithstanding the constancy of

Grade Pay throughout.

8. The Railway Board notified the MACPS vide RBE

No. 101/2009 dated 10.06.2009, operative with

effect from 01.09.2008, in supersession of the

Assured Career Progression Scheme of October

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 7 of 61

1999 (hereinafter, "the ACP Scheme"). The

MACPS provides for three financial

upgradations at intervals of 10, 20, and 30

years of continuous regular service. The manner

of grant of each such upgradation is prescribed

by the material provisions of the Scheme, which

will be extracted and analysed in detail in the

course of this judgment. The Scheme was

implemented across all ministries and

departments of the Central Government and

was intended, in the words of its preamble, to

provide time-bound financial progression to

employees who are unable to secure regular

promotion through the formal promotional

process.

9. Upon implementation of the MACPS, the Zonal

Railway Manager, Kota, extended the 2nd and

3rd financial upgradations to the Respondent

placing him at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Grade

Pay Rs. 4800 with effect from 01.09.2008 by

office order dated 07.01.2011. That order itself

recorded that the grant was subject to any

further clarification from the Railway Board.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 8 of 61

The said benefits were granted on the basis of

the prevailing understanding of the Scheme.

10. The Railway Board, recognising that different

Zonal Railways were applying the MACPS

differently to the Guard category, sought

clarification from the Department of Personnel

and Training (hereinafter, "DoPT"), the nodal

department for the MACPS. Following this

consultation, the Railway Board issued RBE No.

76/2011 dated 10.02.2011 a clarification that

is central to the present proceedings. The

circular held, on the basis of a detailed analysis

of the Guard cadre structure, The circular

stated that the following movements within the

Guard cadre were liable to be treated as a

"promotion" for the purpose of MACP

computation under Paragraph 8 of the MACPS:

(a) from Goods Guard to Senior Goods Guard;

(b) from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger

Guard (counted under Paragraph 8); and (c)

from Senior Passenger Guard to Mail/Express

Guard. The movement from Passenger Guard to

Senior Passenger Guard alone was directed to

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 9 of 61

be ignored under Paragraph 5 of the MACPS on

account of merger of pay scales. According to

the circular, an employee of the Guard cadre

who had traversed the hierarchy up to

Mail/Express Guard had, by virtue of these

three counted promotions, exhausted all three

financial upgradation slots available under the

MACPS. He was accordingly not entitled to any

further financial upgradation. This position was

reiterated by a further circular dated

30.06.2011. In consequence, the Divisional

Railway Manager, Kota, b y order dated

02.09.2011/06.09.2011, withdrew the MACP

benefits that had been extended to the

Respondent and other similarly placed Guards,

and revised their Grade Pay to Rs. 4200 with

effect from 01.09.2008.

11. On 13.12.2012, the Railway Board issued RBE

No.142/2012. According to the appellants, the

said circular clarified the relationship between

financial upgradations under the MACPS and

the promotional hierarchy of individual cadres.

The circular stated that financial upgradation

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 10 of 61

under the MACPS could not result in the grant

of a Grade Pay higher than that available upon

normal promotion in the promotional hierarchy

of the relevant post. It further indicated that

where an employee had reached the highest

post in the cadre, financial upgradation beyond

the Grade Pay attached to such post would not

be permissible. According to the appellants,

since the post of Mail/Express Guard carried

Grade Pay Rs.4200, an employee who had

reached that post was not entitled to financial

upgradation to Grade Pay Rs.4600 or Rs.4800

under the Scheme.

12. The Respondent challenged the orders dated

02.09.2011 and 06.09.2011 vide which MACP

benefits granted to the respondent were

withdrawn before the Tribunal in O.A. No.

468/2011. By order dated 11.07.2014, the

Tribunal did not decide the controversy on its

merits but directed the competent authority to

reconsider the Respondent's MACP claim and

pass a speaking order in light of the judgment

of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 11 of 61

through G.M., ECR v. CAT & Ors.

1, which had

upheld the view of CAT Allahabad in

Sachchidananda Ram & Ors. v. Union of India

2

that the movement from Senior Goods Guard to

Passenger Guard could not be treated as a

promotion for MACP purposes. In compliance

with this direction, the Divisional Railway

Manager, Kota, issued the speaking order on

15.10.2014 rejecting the Respondent's MACP

claim and relying upon Paragraph 8 of the

MACPS and RBE No. 142/2012.

12A. The Respondent then filed O.A. No. 92/2015

challenging the above-referred speaking order

dated 15.10.2014. The Tribunal vide order

dated 11.07.2024 allowed the above O.A. relying

upon the order in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors.

v. Union of India & Ors.

3

of the co-ordinate

Bench, directing the grant of MACP benefits at

Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800 without

counting the movement from Senior Goods

Guard to Passenger Guard as a relevant

1

Writ-A No. 18244/2013, decided on 19.07.2013

2

O.A. No. 1241/2011

3

O.A. Nos. 461/2015 and 462/2015, decided on 22.02.2024

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 12 of 61

promotion and without permitting recovery of

amounts already paid.

13. The Appellants challenged both Tribunal orders

before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur

Bench, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

16939/2024. The High Court dismissed the writ

petition by the impugned order dated

06.01.2025. The Jaipur Bench noted that a co-

ordinate Bench of the same High Court at

Jodhpur in Union of India & Ors. v. Laxman Lal

Parihar & Ors.

4, had decided in favour of

seventeen similarly situated Mail/Express

Guards of the North -West Railway. The

impugned order, reproducing the Jodhpur

Bench judgment at length proceeded to dismiss

the writ petition.

14. The learned Additional Solicitor General, in the

Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant

challenging the impugned judgment, stated that

no recovery would be effected from the

respondent. This Court while issuing notice, at

4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5946/2020, decided on 28.08.2024

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 13 of 61

the first hearing itself, recorded the same and

mentioned that the question of law requires to

be settled. Both the parties subsequently, on

appearance, were directed to file comprehensive

written submissions addressing the factual

aspects, statutory provisions, binding

instructions, and the decisions relied upon with

extracted paragraphs. After the exchange of

pleadings and written submissions, arguments

were heard at length, where counsel for the

parties put forth their respective submissions

as recorded hereinafter.

15. Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.

Vikramjit Banerjee and learned Senior Advocate

Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, appearing on behalf of the

appellants, contended that the High Court as

well as the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the

true structure of the Guard cadre in the Indian

Railways and the effect of Paragraph 8 of the

Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme

(MACPS). It was submitted that the Guard cadre

has always consisted of distinct posts arranged

in a clearly identifiable promotional hierarchy

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 14 of 61

and that the merger of Grade Pay pursuant to

the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission did not have the effect of

obliterating the separate identity of the

promotional posts within the cadre.

16. Elaborating the aforesaid submission, learned

counsel contended that the posts of Goods

Guard, Senior Goods Guard, Passenger Guard,

Senior Passenger Guard and Mail/Express

Guard continue to remain separate promotional

posts under the applicable Recruitment Rules

as well as the Avenue Chart governing the

cadre. It was urged that although the said posts

presently carry the same Grade Pay of Rs.4200,

they differ in terms of duties, responsibilities

and operational requirements. Reference was

also made to the additional allowance payable

to a Mail/Express Guard, which, according to

the appellants, reflects the enhanced functional

character of the said post.

17. Learned counsel further submitted that the

promotions earned by employees within the

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 15 of 61

Guard cadre were not mere changes of

designation devoid of financial consequence. It

was contended that upon each promotion, the

employee became entitled to a promotional

increment and the consequential enhancement

of running-duty allowances, with the result that

gross emoluments at each successive stage

were materially higher than at the preceding

one. Reliance was placed upon the pay records

of employees within the Guard cadre placed

before this Court, which demonstrated that

gross emoluments at the stage of Mail/Express

Guard were substantially and significantly

higher than those drawn at the stage of Senior

Goods Guard within the same Grade Pay. It was

accordingly submitted that an employee who

traversed the entire promotional hierarchy of

the Guard cadre, receiving at each stage the

financial benefits attached to the higher post,

and who retired from the terminal post drawing

the highest emoluments available within the

cadre, cannot be characterised as having

experienced the financial stagnation that the

MACPS was designed to remedy.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 16 of 61

18. Learned counsel further submitted that

Paragraph 8 of the MACPS directly governs the

controversy involved in the present appeals.

Drawing attention to the language employed

therein, it was contended that promotions

earned in posts carrying the same Grade Pay in

the promotional hierarchy are specifically

required to be counted for the purposes of

financial upgradation under the Scheme.

According to the appellants, the movement from

one post to another within the Guard cadre

constitutes a promotion under the applicable

Recruitment Rules, the posts carry the same

Grade Pay and such posts constitute successive

stages in the promotional hierarchy prescribed

under the Recruitment Rules. In such

circumstances, it was argued that the

respondents were not entitled to ignore the

promotions earned by them while claiming the

benefit of the MACPS.

19. Learned counsel next submitted that the

aforesaid position stands reinforced by the

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 17 of 61

executive instructions issued by the competent

authorities. Reliance was placed upon RBE

No.76 of 2011 issued by the Railway Board after

consultation with the Department of Personnel

and Training. It was contended that the MACPS

is a scheme applicable across Government

establishments and that the Railway Board and

the DoPT are the authorities competent to

interpret and implement the same in respect of

Railway employees. The interpretation placed

upon Paragraph 8 by the said circular having

never been challenged, the same aught to be

accepted as such under the Scheme.

20. Reliance was also placed upon RBE No.142 of

2012 to submit that the said circular

specifically provides that financial upgradation

under the MACPS cannot result in the grant of

a Grade Pay higher than the Grade Pay available

on normal promotion within the cadre. Since no

promotional post in the Guard cadre carries a

Grade Pay higher than Rs.4200, learned

counsel contended that the claim of the

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 18 of 61

respondents for Grade Pay of Rs.4600 and

Rs.4800 is wholly unsustainable.

21. Learned counsel further drew support from the

decision of this Court in Union of India and

Others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair

5 and submitted

that the Court had recognized the binding

nature of departmental clarifications issued by

the DoPT in relation to the MACPS. It was urged

that the observations made therein cannot be

construed to mean that financial upgradation

under the Scheme is available without reference

to its express provisions. According to the

appellants, the said decision, supports the

applicability of Paragraph 8 rather than diluting

its effect.

22. Reference was thereafter made to the decisions

of this court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mukti

Singha

6 and Union of India v. Birendra Kujur

7. It

was submitted that this Court has held that an

employee cannot claim a Grade Pay higher than

5

(2020) 5 SCC 421

6

Civil Appeal No. 3321/2018

7

Civil Appeal No. 3328/2018

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 19 of 61

that which would be available to him upon

actual promotion under the applicable cadre

structure.

23. Learned counsel also sought to distinguish the

orders passed by this Court dismissing certain

Special Leave Petitions arising from similar

matters. Drawing attention to the order dated

07.11.2023 passed in SLP (C) No.20906 of 2019

and connected matters, it was submitted that

this Court had expressly left the question of law

open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Such dismissal, according to the appellants,

does not constitute a declaration of law under

Article 141 of the Constitution.

24. Concluding the submissions, learned Senior

Counsel contended that affirmation of the

impugned judgment would have wider

implications beyond the case of the respondent.

It was submitted that acceptance of the

respondent's claim would permit grant of

financial upgradations carrying Grade Pays

higher than those attached to any promotional

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 20 of 61

post in the cadre. According to the appellants,

such an interpretation would affect the existing

cadre structure and have administrative as well

as financial implications across the Railways.

25. Per contra, Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,

supported the judgment under challenge and

submitted that the claim raised by the

respondent flows directly from the provisions of

the Modified Assured Career Progress ion

Scheme (MACPS). According to the learned

counsel, Paragraph 2 of the Scheme constitutes

the governing provision and clearly indicates as

to the entitlement of an employee to financial

upgradation in the immediate next higher

Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the revised Pay

Bands and Grade Pays.

26. Elaborating the aforesaid submission, learned

counsel contended that the respondent

remained in Grade Pay Rs.4200 throughout his

service career and did not receive the benefit of

any financial upgradation to a higher Grade

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 21 of 61

Pay. It was urged that under the hierarchy

prescribed in Pay Band-2, the next higher Grade

Pays after Rs.4200 are Rs.4600 and Rs.4800.

Since the respondent continued to remain in

Grade Pay Rs.4200, he became entitled to

financial upgradation to the next higher Grade

Pays in terms of the Scheme. According to the

respondent, the entitlement claimed is founded

solely upon the Grade Pay hierarchy envisaged

under the MACPS.

27. Learned counsel further submitted that

Paragraph 5 of the MACPS and the illustration

appended thereto provide a complete answer to

the controversy involved in the present case. It

was contended that the pre-revised pay scales

attached to the various posts in the Guard cadre

stood merged pursuant to the recommendations

of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and were

placed in the common Grade Pay of Rs.4200.

Drawing attention to the illustration contained

in Paragraph 5, learned counsel submitted that

the Scheme specifically contemplates a

situation where multiple pre-revised pay scales

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 22 of 61

are merged into a single Grade Pay and clarifies

the consequences flowing therefrom.

28. It was argued that the illustration indicates that

even where an employee may have earned one

or more promotions in the pre-revised scales,

such promotions are liable to be ignored upon

merger of those scales into a common Grade

Pay. Learned counsel submit ted that the

illustration expressly recognizes that

employees, who had received promotions in the

merged scales and those who had not, are to be

treated alike for the purpose of future financial

upgradations under the MACPS. On that basis,

it was contended that the respondent remained

entitled to the benefit of two further financial

upgradations notwithstanding the promotions

earned by him within the Guard cadre prior to

such merger.

29. Learned counsel further contended that the

reliance placed by the appellants upon the

decision of this Court in Mukti Singha (supra) is

distinguishable. According to him, the said

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 23 of 61

decision arose in an entirely different factual

and legal context where principles applicable to

the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP)

had been imported into a claim arising under

the MACPS. The respondent's claim, it was

submitted, does not rest upon any principle

flowing from the ACP Scheme but is founded

squarely upon Paragraph 2 of the MACPS read

with the illustration contained in Paragraph 5

thereof.

30. The respondent, however, asserts that after

implementation of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission, all promotional posts above Goods

Guard carried Grade Pay Rs. 4200 and that

despite earning promotions, he continued to

remain in the same Grade Pay. According to

him, Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the MACPS entitle

him to financial upgradation to the next higher

Grade Pays in the hierarchy.

31. With regard to the dismissal of the Special Leave

Petitions arising from similar matters, learned

counsel fairly submitted that such dismissals

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 24 of 61

may not amount to a declaration of law under

Article 141 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, it

was contended that the order dated 07.11.2023

assumes significance inasmuch as this Court

declined to interfere with the view taken in

favour of the employees an d also directed

disbursement of the consequential benefits.

According to the respondent, the said

circumstance lends support to the

interpretation canvassed on behalf of the

employees.

32. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the

Union of India had accepted the judgment

rendered by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, in the case of

Laxman Lal Parihar (supra) and had chosen not

to assail the same before this Court. It was

urged that the said decision, involving an

identical issue concerning an employee

belonging to the same service, was implemented

by the authorities. In such circumstances,

learned counsel contended that the present

challenge, directed against another employee

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 25 of 61

similarly situated, is inconsistent with the stand

previously adopted by the appellants and does

not warrant interference with the relief granted

to the respondent.

33. Having heard the learned counsel at length and

upon a thorough examination of the pleadings,

the MACPS as notified, the Railway Board

circulars, the judgments passed by the different

High Courts, including the impugned order and

the orders of the Tribunal and the written

submissions of both the parties, the following

question fall for determination by this Court:

(i) Whether, on a proper interpretation of

Paragraphs 2, 5 and 8 of the Modified Assured

Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), the

respondent is entitled to financial upgradations

to Grade Pay Rs.4600 and Rs.4800, or whether

the promotions earned by him within the Guard

cadre are liable to be counted for the purposes

of the Scheme?

34. Before proceeding to analyse these questions, it

is necessary to examine, with some care, the

nature and purpose of the MACPS and its

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 26 of 61

relationship with the ACP Scheme that it

superseded. This examination illuminates both

the structure of the Scheme and the correct

methodology for its interpretation.

35. The ACP Scheme of October 1999 was designed

to address financial stagnation in government

service arising from the absence of promotional

vacancies. It operated on the principle of the

promotional hierarchy: upon completion of 12

or 24 years of service without promotion, the

employee would be placed on the pay scale of

the next promotional post in his cadre. The

reference point for the financial benefit under

the ACP Scheme was, therefore, inherently

cadre-specific it depended on the pay scale

attached to the next post in the cadre's

promotion ladder. An employee in a cadre with

a compressed or low -ceiling promotional

structure would accordingly receive only

modest ACP benefit.

36. The MACPS was introduced against the

backdrop of the Sixth CPC's revision of the pay

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 27 of 61

structure, which replaced pay scales with the

Pay Band and Grade Pay system. In the new

structure, Grade Pay became the determinative

indicator of financial level for a post; movement

from one Grade Pay to the next higher Grade

Pay represented financial progression. The

MACPS, by providing for placement in the

"immediate next higher Grade Pay in the

hierarchy of the recommended revised Pay

Bands and Grade Pay" upon completion of

service benchmarks, departed from the ACP

Scheme's cadre -specific promotional-post

reference and adopted a universal Grade Pay

hierarchy as the measure of progression. This

departure was deliberate and is reflected in the

choice of the word "merely" in Paragraph 2,

which signals that the entitlement is one of

Grade Pay movement, not promotional-post

entitlement.

37. However, this departure does not mean, and

was not intended to mean, that the MACPS

operates without reference to the cadre's

promotional structure in any situation.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 28 of 61

Paragraph 8 of the MACPS was enacted

precisely to ensure that the Scheme cannot be

used to generate financial entitlements that

bear no relationship to actual promotional

advancement within a cadre. Where an

employee's cadre retains a promotional

hierarchy with distinct posts, separately

specified in the Recruitment Rules, in which

promotions are earned and where those

promotions happen to carry the same Grade Pay

by virtue of the Sixth CPC structure, Paragraph

8 provides that those promotions are to be

counted for MACP purposes. The purpose of

Paragraph 8 is to prevent an employee who has

been promoted within his cadre from also

claiming that he has been "stagnant" and is

therefore entitled to MACP upgradations as if he

had never moved. It addresses the anomaly that

would otherwise arise: an employee who

received three actual promotions would,

without Paragraph 8, be treated identically to

one who received none, because both hold

Grade Pay Rs. 4200. Paragraph 8 corrects this

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 29 of 61

by insisting that promotions, even same-Grade-

Pay promotions, are counted.

38. The financial reality of the Guard cadre lends

further weight to this conclusion. The

Respondent's case rests on the premise that the

promotions within the Guard cadre were, in a

practical sense, financially inconsequential

because the Grade Pay did not change. That

premise does not withstand scrutiny. Each

promotion within the Guard cadre involved a

formal process of selection, issuance of

promotion-cum-posting orders, and fixation of

pay in the higher post with a promotional

increment. That increment raised basic pay

and, in turn, running -duty allowances

computed thereon, as well as all other pay-

linked emoluments. The post -specific

allowances sanctioned by the Railway Board for

the higher Guard posts, as noted earlier, further

reinforced this differentiation. The result was a

meaningful and measurable financial

advancement at each promotional stage. To

characterise these promotions as financially

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 30 of 61

neutral because the Grade Pay label remained

unchanged would be to examine only one

component of the employee's remuneration

while disregarding the full financial picture that

the record presents.

39. It is necessary to extract and examine the

material provisions of the MACPS as notified

vide RBE No. 101/2009 dated 10.06.2009,

upon which the entire controversy turns. The

relevant provisions are as follows:

"Paragraph 2. The MACPS envisages merely

placement in the immediate next higher Grade

Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended

revised Pay Bands and Grade Pay as given in

Section 1, Part-A of the first schedule of the

Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Thus, the Grade Pay at the time of financial

upgradation under the MACPS can, in certain

cases where regular promotion is not between

two successive grades, be different than what

is available at the time of regular promotion. In

such cases, the higher Grade Pay attached to

the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the

concerned cadre/organisation will be given

only at the time of regular promotion."

"Paragraph 5. Promotions earned/

upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme

in the past to those grades which now carry the

same Grade Pay due to merger of pay

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 31 of 61

scales/upgradations of posts recommended by

the Sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for

the purpose of granting upgradations under

Modified ACPS."

"Paragraph 5: Illustration. The pre-revised

hierarchy (in ascending order) in a particular

organisation was as follows: Rs. 5000-8000,

Rs. 5500-9000 & Rs. 6500-10500. (a) A

Railway servant who was recruited in the

hierarchy in the pre-revised pay scale Rs.

5000-8000 and who did not get a promotion

even after 25 years of service prior to

1.1.2006... (b) Another Railway servant

recruited in the same hierarchy in the pre-

revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000 has also

completed about 25 years of service, but he got

two promotions to the next higher grades of Rs.

5500-9000 & Rs. 6500-10500 during this

period. In the case of both (a) and (b) above, the

promotions/financial upgradations granted

under ACP to the pre-revised scales of Rs.

5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 prior to

1.1.2006 will be ignored on account of

merger... both of them will be granted Grade

Pay of Rs. 4200 in the Pay Band PB-2. After

the implementation of MACPS, two financial

upgradations will be granted both in the case

of (a) and (b) above to the next higher Grade

Pays of Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800 in the Pay Band

PB-2."

"Paragraph 8. Promotions earned in the post

carrying same Grade Pay in the promotional

hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be

counted for the purpose of MACPS."

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 32 of 61

40. The principal question which arises for

consideration is whether Paragraph 8 applies to

the Guard cadre. The provision operates upon

three conditions: first, there must be a

promotion; second, the post from which and to

which the promotion is earned must carry the

same Grade Pay; and third, the posts must be

located in the promotional hierarchy as per the

applicable Recruitment Rules. The Respondent

argues, and the courts below accepted, that the

Guard cadre movements cannot qualify as

"promotions" because they do not result in

Grade Pay improvement. We are unable to agree

with the view taken by the Tribunal and

affirmed by the High Court. A promotion does

not cease to be a promotion merely because the

promotee's Grade Pay does not change. The

characteristic elements of a promotion are the

formal process by which it is granted, the

enhanced responsibilities of the higher post,

and the structural hierarchy within which it is

situated. The Guard cadre movements satisfy

all these elements. The movement from Senior

Goods Guard to Passenger Guard, and from

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 33 of 61

Senior Passenger Guard to Mail/Express

Guard, are both achieved through a defined

promotional process, carry enhanced

operational responsibilities, and are placed in a

promotional hierarchy that is separately

specified in the Recruitment Rules and the

Avenue Chart.

41. The convergence of Grade Pay does not dissolve

the promotional character of these movements.

If the legislature and the policy-maker had

intended Paragraph 8 to apply only to

promotions that involve a Grade Pay increase,

the provision would have said so. It does not. It

says "promotions earned in the post carrying

same Grade Pay in the promotional hierarchy as

per Recruitment Rules." The qualifying phrase

"same Grade Pay" is used to identify the factual

situation to which the provision is addressed,

not to exclude promotions on the ground that

they carry the same Grade Pay. On the contrary,

Paragraph 8 was enacted specifically for cadres

in which the Sixth CPC has caused Grade Pay

convergence cadres in which functional

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 34 of 61

promotions are earned but Grade Pay does not

change. The Guard cadre is precisely such a

cadre to which Paragraph 8 would apply.

42. Furthermore, a plain reading of Paragraph 8

admits of no ambiguity. It is expressed in

mandatory terms "shall be counted." The only

question is whether, as a matter of fact, the

Guard cadre movements satisfy the description

of "promotions earned in the post carrying same

Grade Pay in the promotional hierarchy as per

Recruitment Rules." On the materials before

this Court the Recruitment Rules, the Avenue

Chart under Rule 124 of the Indian Railway

Establishment Manual, and the Sixth CPC

restructuring as reflected in the applicable pay

rules the answer is unambiguously ‘yes’. The

Guard cadre retains distinct, separately

promotable posts at Grade Pay Rs. 4200 in PB-

2, specified as rungs in the promotional

hierarchy under the Recruitment Rules.

Paragraph 8 applies to the Guard Cadre.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 35 of 61

43. The Respondent's principal counter, founded on

the illustration to Paragraph 5, requires careful

examination. The illustration postulates a

hypothetical cadre with pre-revised scales Rs.

5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000, and Rs. 6500 -

10500 all merged into Grade Pay Rs. 4200. It

directs that both an employee who received no

prior promotions and one who received two

promotions within those scales shall, after the

merger, be given two fresh upgradations to

Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800. The

Respondent contends that the Guard cadre's

pre-revised scales (Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs.

5500-9000) correspond to the scales in the

illustration, and that the illustration therefore

applies.

44. This argument, while superficially attractive,

does not survive scrutiny. Paragraph 5, read as

a whole, is a transitional provision. It addresses

the specific problem of promotions and ACP

upgradations that were granted under the ACP

Scheme in the past that is, before 01.09.2008.

The opening words of Paragraph 5 are:

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 36 of 61

"Promotions earned/upgradations granted

under the ACP Scheme in the past to those

grades which now carry the same Grade Pay

due to merger..." The operative trigger is the

ACP-era grant: the provision directs that such

past ACP-era grants are to be "ignored" upon

implementation of the MACPS, to the extent

they were to grades that have since merged.

This is a transitional adjustment it prevents the

prior ACP history from becoming a windfall or a

deduction under the new MACPS structure.

45. The illustration to Paragraph 5, correctly

understood, is an illustration of this transitional

adjustment. In scenario (a), the employee

received no actual promotions but had received

ACP upgradations to the higher scales under

the ACP Scheme. In scenario (b), the employee

had received actual promotions to the higher

scales. In both cases, those pre-01.09.2008

ACP-era upgradations and promotions are

"ignored on account of merger," and the

employee begins the MACPS entitlement count

afresh from Grade Pay Rs. 4200. The

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 37 of 61

illustration directs two fresh MACP

upgradations for both scenarios but this is the

starting position before Paragraph 8 is applied.

46. The crucial and determinative point is that the

illustration to Paragraph 5 addresses the pre-

MACPS history; Paragraph 8 addresses the

post-01.09.2008 MACPS period. Paragraph 5's

direction to "ignore" past promotions means: do

not count those past promotions as having used

up MACP slots. It does not mean: grant the

employee upgradations regardless of future

promotions earned within the MACPS period. If,

after 01.09.2008, the employee whether he falls

under scenario (a) or scenario (b) of the

illustration earns further promotions within his

cadre that carry the same Grade Pay, those

post-01.09.2008 promotions are counted under

Paragraph 8. The illustration to Paragraph 5

operates in the pre-MACPS space; Paragraph 8

operates in the post-MACPS space. The two

provisions are complementary, not

contradictory.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 38 of 61

47. Even if the illustration were read, as the

Respondent urges, as an absolute direction that

employees in merged-scale cadres receive two

upgradations regardless of all subsequent

career progression it would still not assist the

Respondent on the facts of the present case. The

Respondent's promotions to Passenger Guard

(1992) and Mail/Express Guard (1993) both

predate the MACPS, which came into force on

01.09.2008. He retired in 2009. The question in

his case is not whether pre-MACPS promotions

count under Paragraph 8; it is whether the fact

that he had, by the time the MACPS came into

force, already traversed the entire Guard cadre

and was occupying the terminal post means he

had exhausted three promotional rungs. On any

reading, RBE No. 76/2011 which specifically

addresses the Guard cadre situation and counts

three promotions under Paragraph 8 as

exhausting the MACP slots supports the

interpretation canvassed on behalf of the

appellants.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 39 of 61

48. The binding force of RBE No. 76/2011 and RBE

No. 142/2012 also falls for examination. The

principles governing the effect of executive

interpretations of government service schemes

are well established. A government service

scheme, such as the MACPS, is an executive

instrument. Its interpretation by the

administering authority particularly where that

interpretation follows consultation with the

nodal department (DoPT in the case of the

MACPS) is entitled to due consideration. This

Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), in

Paragraph 30, held in explicit terms that

"Departmental clarifications issued by DoPT are

integral to the Scheme and binding on all

authorities." This is not a statement of mere

administrative courtesy. It reflects the well-

established principle that an executive scheme

created by the Government for its own

employees is to be administered as the

Government intends, and that executive

interpretations of such schemes, when issued

by the competent authority in consultation with

the nodal department, are binding on service

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 40 of 61

tribunals, subordinate courts, and all

administrative authorities.

49. RBE No. 76/2011 was issued by the Railway

Board after consultation with DoPT. It is not a

circular issued unilaterally or without reference

to the scheme's principal custodian. Its

contents have not been challenged in the

present proceedings as ultra vires the MACPS or

as contrary to any statutory provision. The

Respondent's case before this Court is not that

RBE No. 76/2011 is invalid; his case is that

Paragraph 5's illustration should be read as

overriding it. For the reasons set out in

Paragraphs 39 to 43 above, that reading does

not hold. The circular requires consideration

while interpreting the Scheme. It categorically

applies Paragraph 8 to the Guard cadre, counts

the relevant promotions, and concludes that

employees who have reached Mail/Express

Guard have exhausted their MACP entitlement.

50. RBE No. 142/2012 provides an independent

and self-sufficient basis for the Appellants' case.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 41 of 61

It lays down a rule of general application:

MACPS upgradation cannot be to a Grade Pay

higher than that available on normal promotion

in the hierarchy. This rule follows naturally

from the structure of the MACPS: if the MACPS

is intended to provide financial progression as a

substitute for promotional advancement, it

cannot be used to provide financial levels that

would exceed what the employee could have

achieved through the highest actual promotion

available to him. Where no promotional post in

the cadre carries Grade Pay above Rs. 4200,

granting MACP at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 or Rs.

4800 would not be a substitute for a promotion

that the employee missed; it would be a windfall

that exceeds the financial ceiling of the cadre

altogether. RBE No. 142/2012 expres sly

prohibits this.

51. In Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra),

this Court considered the MACPS in the context

of the Railway's running staff. In Paragraph 30,

this Court observed:

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 42 of 61

"MACP Scheme envisages merely placement in

the immediate next higher grade pay. By

perusal of the MACP Scheme extracted earlier,

it is seen that the words used in the Scheme

are placement in the immediate next higher

grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended

revised pay bands. The term grade pay in the

next promotional post is conspicuously absent

in the entire body of the MACP Scheme."

52. The observation that "grade pay in the next

promotional post is conspicuously absent from

the MACPS" was made in the context of rejecting

a contention that MACP upgradations must be

confined strictly to the Grade Pay of the next

promotional post, even where that Grade Pay

happened not to be the next Grade Pay in the

PB hierarchy. That observation read in its

proper context does not mean that an employee

is entitled to MACP upgradations to Grade Pays

that bear no relationship to any promotional

post in his cadre, or that Paragraph 8 has no

operation. Mohanan Nair also confirmed, and

this is of equal importance for the present case,

that "departmental clarifications issued by

DoPT are integral to the Scheme and binding on

all authorities." It follows that RBE No. 76/2011

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 43 of 61

a DoPT-consulted clarification must be given

effect as an integral part of the Scheme. To the

extent Mohanan Nair is relied upon by the

Respondent as authority for a cadre-ceiling-free

interpretation of the MACPS, that reliance is

misconceived, instead, it simultaneously

commands that DoPT clarifications be followed,

and RBE No. 76/2011 is the controlling DoPT-

consulted clarification for the Guard cadre.

53. In Mukti Singha (supra), Civil Appeal No.

3321/2018, this Court set aside the judgment

of a High Court that had proceeded to grant

financial upgradation as if the matter were

governed by the ACP Scheme, when it in fact

pertained to the MACPS. Paragraph 5 of the

judgment records:

"In our opinion, the view taken by the High

Court that the respondents are entitled to

grade pay higher than what they may get on

actual promotion in the hierarchy cannot be

sustained. The High Court erred in

distinguishing the judgment on the ground that

the same related to ACP Scheme. We do not

find any reason to exclude the principle laid

down therein for interpretation of MACP.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 44 of 61

Moreover, clarification referred to above fully

supports this interpretation."

54. The Respondent and the courts below have

sought to read Mukti Singha (supra) narrowly,

as a decision that corrected only the High

Court's error of applying ACP principles to an

MACP matter, without any broader ratio. That

reading is not consonant with the terms of the

judgment. The holding in Paragraph 5 that "the

view taken by the High Court that the

respondents are entitled to grade pay higher

than what they may get on actual promotion in

the hierarchy cannot be sustained" is stated as

a proposition of general application to the

MACPS. It is not confined to cases where the

High Court has committed the specific error of

applying ACP principles. This Court explicitly

said it found "no reason to exclude the principle

laid down therein for interpretation of MACP."

The principle that an employee cannot receive

Grade Pay higher than what he may get on

actual promotion in the hierarchy applies to the

MACPS as much as to the ACP Scheme. When

this is applied to the Guard cadre, it means that

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 45 of 61

no Guard who has traversed the cadre to

Mail/Express Guard the terminal post whose

Grade Pay is Rs. 4200 can claim MACP at Grade

Pays of Rs. 4600 or Rs. 4800, since those Grade

Pays are not available to any Guard on actual

promotion.

55. In Birendra Kujur (supra), this Court reiterated

the same principle, holding that the

respondents could not be granted Grade Pay

higher than what they may receive on actual

promotion under applicable cadre rules. This

decision reinforces the conclusion reached on

the basis of Mukti Singha (supra). Both

decisions, taken together, establish that the

principle against exceeding the promotional

hierarchy's Grade Pay ceiling is an integral

feature of the MACPS, not merely a feature of

the ACP Scheme.

56. On the effect of SLP dismissals. In

Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 46 of 61

and Another

8, a Constitution Bench of this

Court held in Paragraph 44:

"If the order refusing leave to appeal is a non-

speaking order, i.e., does not assign any

reasons, then it will not be a declaration of law

by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the

Constitution and would not attract the doctrine

of merger."

57. The order dated 07.11.2023 dismissing SLP(C)

No. 20906/2019 and connected matters is not

merely a non-speaking order it goes further and

expressly records that "the question of law, if

any, is left open to be decided in an appropriate

case." This self-limiting language places it

beyond doubt that the dismissal was not a

declaration of law and that the question was

specifically preserved for a future case. The

present appeal is the appropriate case in which

the question is resolved. It is significant that

this Court, at the first hearing on 01.12.2025,

itself noted that the question of law requires to

be settled, recognising that the 07.11.2023

order had left it open. The Jodhpur Bench's and

8

(2000) 6 SCC 359

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 47 of 61

the Jaipur Bench's reliance on those SLP

dismissals as if they embodied a binding

determination of the legal position is therefore

erroneous, as it is inconsistent with the express

terms of those orders and with the principle in

Kunhayammed (supra).

58. The Respondent placed considerable weight on

the circumstance that the Union of India did not

challenge the Jodhpur Bench judgment in

Laxman Lal Parihar (supra) and is stated to have

implemented it without reservation. This

circumstance does not and cannot create an

issue estoppel or a binding precedent against

the Union in the present proceedings. The

question before this Court is one of public law

where the corr ect interpretation of a

government-wide service scheme affecting a

large number of employees across the Indian

Railways is involved. The Union's omission to

challenge a coordinate High Court judgment in

one matter involving seventeen employees of a

different Zonal Railway cannot estop it from

challenging an identical order in a different

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 48 of 61

proceeding, particularly where this Court has

granted leave and has specifically noted that the

question of law requires to be settled. The

doctrine of issue estoppel operates between the

same parties or their privies in relation to the

same subject-matter; it does not operate to

foreclose a question of law of general public

importance merely because the Government

failed to challenge one High Court judgment on

that question.

59. The principle of judicial discipline applied by

both High Court Benches that a co -ordinate

Bench must follow or refer, not simply differ is

correct as a matter of intra-High Court judicial

administration. This Court does not doubt the

propriety of the Jaipur Bench's adherence to the

Jodhpur Bench judgment in accordance with

the principles in Chandra Prakash and Others

v. State of U.P. and Another

9 and State of Bihar

v. Kalika Kuer and Others

10. However, the

principle of judicial discipline, by its nature,

9

(2002) 4 SCC 234

10

(2003) 5 SCC 448

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 49 of 61

cannot operate to immunise from appellate

scrutiny a determination that rests on a

misreading of a statutory scheme and on the

erroneous attribution of binding force to SLP

dismissals. The discipline that a coordinate

Bench owes to an earlier coordinate Be nch

judgment is a discipline internal to the High

Court. It does not constrain this Court's

jurisdiction under Article 136, which is

supervisory and corrective in nature. This Court

is not bound by the Jodhpur Bench's or the

Jaipur Bench's understanding of the MACPS. It

has independently examined the provisions

and, for the reasons set out in this judgment,

reached a different conclusion.

60. There is a submission implicit in the

Respondent's case and explicit in the reasoning

of the lower courts that the MACPS was

intended to address financial stagnation, and

that a Guard who spent thirty-two years in

service without ever improving his Grade Pay

beyond Rs. 4200 is, by any measure, stagnant

in the financial sense. The submission is not

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 50 of 61

without a certain equitable force. It must,

however, be addressed by reference to the

scheme's provisions, not by reference to the

equitable appeal of an individual's predicament.

61. Paragraph 25 of the MACPS itself provides that

"if a regular promotion has been offered but was

refused by the employee before becoming

entitled to a financial upgradation, no financial

upgradation shall be allowed as such an

employee has not been stagnated due to lack of

opportunities." The principle that undergirds

this provision is that MACP benefits are

available to employees who have been denied a

promotional opportunity through no fault of

their own, not to those who have received

promotions but whose Grade Pay happened to

stagnate as a result of a pay structure

compression. The Respondent received three

functional promotions over the course of his

career, reaching the terminal post of his cadre

in 1993, sixteen years before his retirement. He

was not denied a promotional opportunity. His

Grade Pay did not progress because the Sixth

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 51 of 61

CPC decided, as a matter of pay policy, to

compress the Guard posts into a single Grade

Pay. That was a pay-structure decision; its

financial consequences cannot be redressed

through the MACPS in a manner that exceeds

the cadre's promotional Grade Pay ceiling, as

that ceiling itself is a product of the same pay-

structure decision.

62. The position is further fortified when the nature

of the duties attached to each promotional post

within the Guard cadre is examined alongside

the financial consequences of each promotion.

A Senior Goods Guard is primarily engaged in

freight operations with relatively limited safety

exposure and public-interface obligations. A

Senior Passenger Guard is entrusted with

passenger train operations, carries heightened

safety responsibilities, and is required to

manage emergencies, chain-pulling incidents,

and continuous public accountability. A

Mail/Express Guard operates high-speed trains

under stringent time -bound conditions,

shoulders the highest degree of public safety

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 52 of 61

responsibility within the cadre, and is subject to

intensive vigilance scrutiny. Each of these

transitions represents a substantive increase in

operational burden and accountability. The

Railway Board's own executive instructions

reflect this progression precisely: the additional

allowance of Rs. 750 per month plus Dearness

Allowance for Senior Passenger Guard and Rs.

1125 per month plus Dearness Allowance for

Mail/Express Guard are specifically calibrated

to the enhanced demands of those posts. An

employee who progressed from freight-train

duty to the operation of high-speed mail and

express services, receiving at each stage

enhanced emoluments commensurate with

those enhanced demands, experienced a career

of continuous advancement. The stagnation

that the MACPS was designed to remedy is the

condition of an employee who, through the

absence of promotional opportunity, has been

denied the financial benefits that promotion

carries. The Respondent is not such an

employee.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 53 of 61

63. This Court is also mindful of the structural

consequence of a contrary holding. If a

Mail/Express Guard the holder of the terminal

post of the Guard cadre, the highest functional

achievement within that cadre is granted MACP

at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and then Rs. 4800, he

will, as a matter of financial entitlement, draw a

Grade Pay higher than the highest Grade Pay

available to any Guard on any actual promotion.

The MACPS, on the Respondent's reading,

would place a Guard who has been promoted to

the highest post of his cadre at a financial level

higher than that of the highest post. This result

is structurally anomalous. It means that the

MACPS, on the Respondent's interpretation, is

not merely providing a substitute for promotion

it is creating financial entitlements that have no

anchor whatsoever in the cadre's structure.

That cannot have been the intent of a scheme

premised on the idea of financial progression in

lieu of promotional advancement.

64. The consistent views of the Allahabad High

Court in Writ-A No. 18244/2013 and the Patna

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 54 of 61

High Court in CWJC No. 6398/2016, both

decided in favour of the employees, have been

noted. Those judgments, and the SLPs filed

against them which were dismissed in

07.11.2023 with the question of law left open,

represent one strand of judicial opinion on this

question. As this Court has explained in the

preceding paragraphs, the analysis in those

decisions to the extent it holds that the

Paragraph 5 illustration overrides Paragraph 8

for the Guard cadre, or that Guard cadre

movements are not promotions und er

Paragraph 8 does not, in this Court's considered

view, correctly apply the provisions of the

MACPS. The dismissal of the SLPs against those

judgments with the question of law left open

reflects this Court's deliberate choice not to

endorse those decisions as declaring the law; it

was a choice that preserved the question for the

present occasion. The present judgment

resolves that question, with the benefit of full

argument, in a contrary direction.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 55 of 61

65. This Court records its conclusions on the

question formulated above as follows:

(i) Paragraph 8 of the MACPS applies to the

Guard cadre. The posts of Senior Goods Guard,

Passenger Guard, Senior Passenger Guard, and

Mail/Express Guard are distinct posts in the

promotional hierarchy as per the applicable

Recruitment Rules, carrying the same Grade

Pay of Rs. 4200 in Pay Band PB-2. The

functional promotions earned within the Guard

cadre constitute "promotions" within the

meaning of Paragraph 8. An employee who has

traversed the Guard cadre up to Mail/Express

Guard has earned three promotions counted

under Paragraph 8 (with the Passenger Guard

to Senior Passenger Guard movement ignored

under Paragraph 5) and has thereby exhausted

all three financial upgradation slots under the

MACPS. He is not entitled to any further

financial upgradation.

(ii) It is further recorded that the promotions so

earned were not, in substance, financially

inconsequential merely because Grade Pay

remained constant. Each promotion within the

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 56 of 61

Guard cadre entailed a promotional increment

and the consequential enhancement of

running-duty allowances and post-specific

emoluments, the details of which have been

noted in the preceding analysis. An employee

who received these financial benefits through

successive promotions has not experienced

financial stagnation within the meaning of the

MACPS and is not entitled to further financial

upgradation under the Scheme on that ground.

(iii) The illustration to Paragraph 5, correctly

understood, is a transitional provision

addressing the treatment of pre-MACPS ACP-

era promotions and upgradations. It does not

override Paragraph 8 in respect of the post-

01.09.2008 MACPS period. The Guard cadre's

pre-revised pay scales correspond to those in

the illustration, but the illustration directs only

that pre-MACPS promotions be ignored for the

purpose of the MACPS starting count; it does

not direct that all subsequent promotions

earned within the MACPS period, or all

promotions earned before the MACPS period

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 57 of 61

but counted under Paragraph 8, are similarly to

be ignored.

(iv) RBE No. 76/2011 and RBE No. 142/2012,

as DoPT-consulted binding executive

clarifications of the MACPS, correctly apply

Paragraph 8 to the Guard cadre and correctly

reflect the position that MACP upgradation

cannot exceed the Grade Pay ceiling of the

promotional hierarchy. These circulars are in

conformity with, and not in derogation of, the

parent Scheme. They must be given full effect.

(v) The ratio of this Court in Union of India v.

Mukti Singha, Civil Appeal No. 3321/2018, and

Union of India v. Birendra Kujur, Civil Appeal No.

3328/2018, that an employee cannot be

granted Grade Pay higher than what he may get

on actual promotion in the hierarchy applies to

the MACPS and governs the present case. In

M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the endorsement of

DoPT clarifications as integral to and binding

under the Scheme further reinforces the

Appellants' position.

(vi) The dismissal of SLP(C) No. 20906/2019

and connected matters on 07.11.2023 does not

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 58 of 61

constitute a declaration of law under Article 141

of the Constitution. That order expressly

reserved the question of law. The High Court

erred in treating those dismissals as a binding

determination of the correct legal position.

(vii) The impugned order of the High Court, in

following the Jodhpur Bench judgment in

Laxman Lal Parihar on the basis of judicial

discipline without independently examining the

MACPS provisions, the Recruitment Rules, or

the binding circulars, proceeded on an

erroneous legal foundation. The conclusion

reached by the Jodhpur Bench, followed by the

Jaipur Bench, that Paragraph 5's illustration

overrides Paragraph 8 for the Guard cadre, and

that the Guard cadre movements are not

promotions for MACP purposes, is incorrect and

is, by this judgment, set aside.

66. In the light of the foregoing analysis and the

conclusions recorded above, the appeal is

allowed. The judgment and order dated

06.01.2025, passed by the High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 59 of 61

Writ Petition No. 16939/2024 is set aside. The

orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jaipur Bench, dated 11.07.2014 in O.A. No.

468/2011 and dated 11.07.2024 in O.A. No.

92/2015, to the extent they directed the grant

of MACP financial upgradations at Grade Pay

Rs. 4600 and Grade Pay Rs. 4800 to the

Respondent, are set aside. The speaking order

dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Divisional

Railway Manager, Kota, rejecting the

Respondent's MACP claim on the basis of

Paragraph 8 of the MACPS and RBE No.

142/2012, is restored and confirmed.

67. No recovery of any MACP benefits already paid

to the Respondent shall be made. The statement

made before this Court on 01.12.2025 by the

learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of

the Appellants that no recovery in terms of the

impugned order shall be effected from the

Respondent is recorded and forms part of this

order.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 60 of 61

68. The decision of this Court, as set out in this

judgment, shall operate in the following terms:

all similarly situated Railway Guards across

Indian Railways who have traversed the Guard

cadre up to Mail/Express Guard and whose

MACP claims at Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Rs.

4800 were denied or withdrawn pursuant to

RBE No. 76/2011, RBE No. 142/2012, or any

administrative order consistent with this

judgment, and who have not already received

those benefits pursuant to individual orders

that have attained finality a nd been

implemented inter partes, shall have their

MACP positions regulated in accordance with

the law as declared in this judgment. Employees

who have received MACP benefits pursuant to

orders of a Tribunal or High Court that have

attained finality between the parties concerned

and have been implemented shall not be

subjected to any recovery or revision on the

basis of this judgment.

69. In view of our decision in Civil Appeal…./2026

@ SLP (C) No.35363/2025, Civil

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025 etc. Page 61 of 61

Appeal…../2026 @ SLP (C) Diary

No.67055/2025 and Civil Appeal …../2026 @

SLP (C) No.11050 of 2026 are also allowed in the

same terms.

70. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated

03.04.2025 in CWP No. 9803/2023 and

judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 in D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.15303/2023 passed by

the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at

Jaipur Bench are set aside. The orders passed

by the Competent Authority

withdrawing/denying the MACP claims are

restored and confirmed.

71. Pending interlocutory applications stand

disposed of.

72. There shall be no order as to costs.

.……..………..…………………… ..J.

[ SANJAY KAROL ]

.……..………..…………………… ..J.

[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

JULY 23, 2026.