Supreme Court holds Railway Guard promotions count under MACPS despite same Grade Pay

A Sanjay Karol-led Bench held that same-Grade-Pay promotions within the Railway Guard cadre count under Paragraph 8 of the MACPS, denying further upgradation to a Mail/Express Guard.

The Supreme Court has held that functional promotions earned within the Indian Railways Guard cadre must be counted for financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, even where those promotions carry the same Grade Pay. In Union of India and Others v. Harbans Lal Verma, decided on 23 July 2026, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the Union's appeal and set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had affirmed the grant of two further upgradations to a retired Mail/Express Guard. The Court ruled that a Guard who reached the terminal post of the cadre had exhausted all three MACP upgradation slots and could not claim Grade Pay Rs.4600 or Rs.4800. The judgment settles a question the Court had earlier left open, and directs that no recovery be made from the respondent.

How the dispute reached the Court

Harbans Lal Verma joined the Indian Railways as a Goods Guard on 13 August 1976. He was promoted to Passenger Guard in 1992 and to Mail/Express Guard, the highest post within the Guard cadre, on 22 June 1993. He held that post until his superannuation on 31 March 2009, spending his entire service of over thirty-two years within the Guard cadre.

The Sixth Central Pay Commission compressed the Guard cadre's three distinct pre-revised pay scales into two Grade Pays. Goods Guard was placed at Grade Pay Rs.2800, while every other Guard post — including Mail/Express Guard — was placed at the uniform Grade Pay of Rs.4200 in Pay Band PB-2.

The Railway Board notified the MACPS by RBE No. 101/2009 dated 10 June 2009, effective from 1 September 2008, providing three financial upgradations at 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service. The Zonal Railway Manager, Kota, initially extended the 2nd and 3rd upgradations to Verma at Grade Pay Rs.4600 and Rs.4800, subject to further clarification.

That clarification came through RBE No. 76/2011 dated 10 February 2011, issued after consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training. It treated three movements within the Guard cadre as promotions under Paragraph 8, concluding that a Guard who reached Mail/Express Guard had exhausted all three MACP slots. The benefits earlier granted to Verma were withdrawn and his Grade Pay reverted to Rs.4200.

The path through the Tribunal and High Court

Verma challenged the withdrawal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in O.A. No. 468/2011. By order dated 11 July 2014, the Tribunal directed reconsideration through a speaking order. The Divisional Railway Manager, Kota, rejected the claim on 15 October 2014, relying on Paragraph 8 and RBE No. 142/2012.

Verma then filed O.A. No. 92/2015. The Tribunal, by order dated 11 July 2024, allowed it, directing MACP benefits at Grade Pay Rs.4600 and Rs.4800 without counting the movement from Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard, and without permitting recovery. The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissed the Union's writ petition on 6 January 2025, following a coordinate Jodhpur Bench judgment in Laxman Lal Parihar. The Union appealed under Article 136.

What the Court held on Paragraph 8

The Court framed the question as whether, on a proper reading of Paragraphs 2, 5 and 8 of the MACPS, Verma was entitled to upgradation to Grade Pay Rs.4600 and Rs.4800, or whether his intra-cadre promotions had to be counted.

The Court disagreed with the Tribunal and High Court view that the Guard movements were not promotions because Grade Pay did not change. A promotion, it held, does not cease to be one merely because the promotee's Grade Pay remains constant. The defining elements are the formal process of grant, enhanced responsibilities, and placement in a structural hierarchy under the Recruitment Rules.

Paragraph 8 states that “promotions earned in the post carrying same Grade Pay” shall be counted. The Court read the phrase “same Grade Pay” as identifying the situation the provision addresses, not as excluding such promotions. The provision was enacted precisely for cadres where the Sixth CPC caused Grade Pay convergence. Expressed in mandatory terms, Paragraph 8 applied to the Guard cadre.

The reasoning on Paragraph 5 and the financial reality

Verma's principal argument rested on the illustration to Paragraph 5, which treats employees who received promotions in merged scales and those who did not as alike, granting both two fresh upgradations to Rs.4600 and Rs.4800.

The Court held Paragraph 5 is a transitional provision addressing promotions and upgradations granted under the earlier ACP Scheme before 1 September 2008. Its direction to “ignore” such past grants means they do not consume MACP slots. It does not mean upgradations are granted regardless of promotions counted under Paragraph 8. The illustration operates in the pre-MACPS space; Paragraph 8 operates in the post-MACPS space. The two are complementary.

The Court also rejected the premise that the Guard promotions were financially inconsequential. Each promotion involved a promotional increment that raised basic pay and, in turn, running-duty allowances. The Railway Board had sanctioned post-specific 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. Gross emoluments at the Mail/Express Guard stage were materially higher.

Circulars, precedent and the reserved question

The Court treated RBE No. 76/2011 and RBE No. 142/2012 as DoPT-consulted binding clarifications integral to the Scheme, relying on Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair. RBE No. 142/2012 provides that MACP upgradation cannot exceed the Grade Pay available on normal promotion in the hierarchy. Since no Guard post carried Grade Pay above Rs.4200, granting Rs.4600 or Rs.4800 would be a windfall.

The Court applied Union of India v. Mukti Singha and Union of India v. Birendra Kujur for the principle that an employee cannot receive Grade Pay higher than what he may get on actual promotion in the hierarchy.

On the earlier dismissal of SLP(C) No. 20906/2019 on 7 November 2023, the Court applied Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, holding that a non-speaking dismissal is not a declaration of law under Article 141. That order had expressly left the question of law open, and the present appeal was the appropriate case to resolve it. The High Court had erred in treating those dismissals as binding.

The Court held that the Union's failure to challenge the Jodhpur Bench judgment in Laxman Lal Parihar did not create issue estoppel, as the matter involved a public law question of general importance across the Railways.

Order

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Rajasthan High Court order dated 6 January 2025. It set aside the Tribunal orders of 11 July 2014 and 11 July 2024 to the extent they directed upgradation at Grade Pay Rs.4600 and Rs.4800. The speaking order dated 15 October 2014 rejecting Verma's claim was restored and confirmed.

The Court directed that no recovery of MACP benefits already paid to Verma be made, recording the Additional Solicitor General's statement of 1 December 2025 to that effect. The connected appeals arising from SLP (C) Diary No.67055/2025 and SLP (C) No.11050 of 2026 were allowed in the same terms, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court orders dated 3 April 2025 in CWP No. 9803/2023 and 20 March 2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15303/2023. Employees who received benefits under orders that attained finality inter partes were not to face recovery. There was no order as to costs.