NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY (NEHU) AND 4 ORS v. AJOY KRISHNA BHATTACHARJEE

Page 1 of 10

Serial No. 01 & 02

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Date of Hearing: 10.07.2026

WA No.58 of 2024 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026

1. North Eastern Hill University (NEHU),

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022

Meghalaya represented by the Registrar.

2. The Registrar, North Eastern Hill University, NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya.

3. The Deputy Registrar (Establishment-I)

North Eastern Hill University,

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya.

4. Local Cadre Review Committee,

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya

Represented by its Chairman

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

-VERSUS-

Shri. Panna Lal Shome

S/o (L) P.S. Shome

R/o Polo Hills, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

…..Writ Petitioner/Respondent

WA No.59 of 2024

1. North Eastern Hill University (NEHU),

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022

Meghalaya represented by the Registrar.

2. The Registrar, North Eastern Hill University, NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya.

3. The Deputy Registrar (Establishment-I)

North Eastern Hill University,

2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 2 of 10

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya.

4. Local Cadre Review Committee,

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya

Represented by its Chairman

5. Assistant Registrar (CRC),

North Eastern Hill University,

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

-VERSUS-

Shri. Ajoy Krishna Bhattacharjee

S/o (L) A.C. Bhattacharjee

R/o Laban, Shillong, East Khasi Hills

District, Meghalaya.

…..Writ Petitioner/Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv with Ms. E. Blah, Adv

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Chanda, Adv with Mr. S. Nath, Adv Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv

Judgment and Order

Per. B. Bhattacharjee, Judge:

1. This set of two writ appeals has been filed against the Commo n Judgment dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)

No.45 of 2015 and WP(C) No.46 of 2015 whereby the appellants herein (respondents in the writ petitions) were directed to take necessary steps by passing relevant orders to correct the anomaly made out by gran ting the 2 nd 2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 3 of 10

and 3 rd financial upgradation to the respondents/writ petitioner s as determined in the judgment and to make necessary arrangements for payment of arrears etc. within a period of 3 (three) months.

2. The facts in WP(C) No.45 of 2015 are that the respondent/writ petitioner joined as a Junior Stenographer in NEHU on 06.03 .1986. He was granted 1 st financial upgradation under the One Time Upward Movement (OTUM) Scheme of UGC w.e.f. 06.03.1994 after completion of 8 years of service and his pay was revised and refixed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175- 9000 (5 th CPC). Thereafter, pursuant to the implementation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme in the month of August, 1991, the respondent/writ petitioner was granted 2 nd financial upgradation vide office order dated 24.04.2006 w.e.f. 06.03.2006 and his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 (5 th CPC). In terms of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the respondent/writ petitioner was granted 3 rd financial upgradation and was placed in the pay scale of PB-2:

Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4800 (6 th CPC) w.e.f. 17.07.2016. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, upon implementation of the 6 th CPC, the old pay scales were restructured and the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs. 5500- 8000 and Rs.6500-10500 were merged into the revised pay scale PB -2:

Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay(GP) Rs.4200. The MACP Scheme was announced vide Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 providing gran t of 3 financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service. Paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme provided that promotio ns earned/upgradation granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scale/upgradation of posts recommended by the 6 th CPC shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS. Since th e respondent/writ petitioner was granted 1 st financial upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 w.e.f. 06.03.1994 and 2 nd financial upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 w.e.f. 06.03.2006 and b oth the said 2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 4 of 10

pay scales have been restructured and merged under the 6 th CPC into PB-2:

Rs.9300-34800 with GP of Rs.4200, he was entitled to be placed in PB-2:

Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4600 on 1 st financial upgradation and in PB-2:

Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4800 on 2nd financial upgradation.

3. The situation in WP(C) No.46 of 2015 is somewhat similar t o the above. The respondent/writ petitioner therein joined NEHU as a Stenographer on 04.09.1989. He was granted 1 st financial upgradation w.e.f.

04.09.1997 under OTUM Scheme upon completion of 8 years of service and his pay was revised and refixed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-17 5-9000 (5 th CPC). After implementation of the ACP Scheme, the respondent/writ petitioner was placed in the pay scale of PB-2: Rs.9300-34800 (6th CPC)

with GP Rs.4600 w.e.f. 04.09.2009 by way of granting 2 nd financial upgradation. Subsequently, respondent/writ petitioner was granted 3 rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.09.2018 in the pay scale of PB-2: Rs.9300- 34800 (6th CPC) with GP Rs.4800 (Pay Level-8: Rs.47600-151100 under 7 th CPC). On the basis of the same grounds raised in WP(C) No.45 of 2015, the respondent/writ petitioner asserted that he was entitled to b e placed in PB-2:

Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4600 on 1 st financial upgradation and in PB-2:

Rs. 9300-34800 with GP Rs.4800 on 2nd financial upgradation.

4. The record reveals that the writ petitions were filed in the year 2 015 and were subsequently amended. Thereafter, amended writ petitions were filed in the year 2024.

5. In both the writ petitions, the respondents/writ petitioners p rayed for issuance of necessary direction for placing them in PB-2: Rs. 930 0-34800 with GP Rs.4800 on 2 nd financial upgradation and in PB-2 with GP Rs.6600 (Pay Band fixed 15600-39100) on 3 rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. the date of their respective entitlement.

6. The appellants filed their affidavit-in-opposition in bot h the writ petitions denying the claim of the respondents/writ petitioners.

2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 5 of 10

7. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the contentions ra ised by the parties, by impugned Judgment dated 24.06.2024 declined to pass any direction to place the respondents/writ petitioners in the r elevant pay scale with GP of Rs.6600 on their 3 rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme.

However, the learned Single Judge held that the respondents/writ petitioners were entitled to GP of Rs.4800 on 2 nd financial upgradation and GP of Rs.5400 on the 3 rd financial upgradation and accordingly, directed the appellant authorities to take necessary steps to pass relevant orders to correct the anomaly made out by granting the 2nd and 3rd financial upgradation to the respondents/writ petitioners as determined in the Judgment and to make necessary arrangement for payment of arrears, etc. in this connection. Be ing aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this set of two writ ap peals against the impugned judgement of the learned Single Judge.

8. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge is erroneou s and not in proper appreciation of the relevant materials on record. He submits th at the contention raised on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners on the basis of the pay revision under 6 th CPC and paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme is utterly misconceived. He submits that though initially th ere was a merger of the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10 500 into revised pay scale of PB-2: Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4200 under the 6 th CPC, the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 was subsequently taken ou t of the merger w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009 of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and was granted higher GP of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. He submits that admittedly the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 with GP of Rs.4600 was no more in the ambit o f merger on the day on which 2 nd financial upgradation was made effective to the respondents/writ petitioners. He further submits that the o rder dated 30.10.2012 relied on by the respondents/writ petitioners to support their 2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 6 of 10

claim, was never circulated or given effect to and in fact, was wit hdrawn on the same day. He contends that in absence of any disclosure by t he respondents/writ petitioners as to how they came to receive the co py of the order dated 30.10.2012, the same cannot be admitted as evidence. He submits that on overall consideration, the Judgment of the l earned Single Judge is not tenable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside and quashed.

9. On the other hand, Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners submits that there is no ille gality or infirmity in the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits th at under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, pay scales of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 were merged and placed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 (Rs.9800-34800 w ith GP Rs.4200) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and hence, the respondents/writ petitioners are entitled to be granted GP of Rs.4600 on their 2 nd financial upgradation as per paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme. He contends that the Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009 of the Ministry of Finance, clearly prov ides that the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.650 0-10500 would be granted revised pay structure of GP of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and therefore, the direction of the learned Single J udge to grant of GP of Rs.4800 on 2 nd financial upgradation and GP of Rs.5400 on 3rd financial upgradation of the respondents/writ petitioner s is totally valid and justified. He further submits that the claim of the responden ts/writ petitioners to be placed in the pay scale of Rs 6500-10500 wit h GP of Rs.4600 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is also correct in terms of the order date d 30.10.2012 of the Vice Chancellor, NEHU. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on an order of the High Cou rt of Kerala, Ernakulam Bench dated 04.01.2023 in OP (CAT) No.179 of 2018, Union of India & ors v. All India Naval Clerks Association & ors and a Judgment dated 01.04.2015 of the same High Court in OP (CAT) No.142 of 2014, Union of India & ors v. T.M. Thomas upheld by the Apex Court in SLP(C)

2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 7 of 10

No.23053/2016. He, thus, submits that the direction of the l earned Single Judge to place the respondents/writ petitioners in GP of Rs 4 800 on 2 nd financial upgradation and in the next higher GP of Rs 5400 on 3 rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme cannot be faulted and prays for dismissal of both the writ appeals.

10. From the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that there is no dispute between the parties with rega rd to the grant of 1 st financial upgradation to the respondents/writ petitioners and their placement in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 under 5 th CPC thereafter. The dispute raised in the present matter arose only after implementation o f the revised pay structure under 6 th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The 6 th Central Pay Commission (CPC) Rules were officially notified on 29.08.2008, though its financial benefits took effect retrospectively from 01.01.2006.

11. As per the 6 th CPC recommendation, three pre-revised scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 were initiall y merged and replaced by the revised pay structure of GP of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2.

However, by Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009, the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 was taken out of the merger and granted GP of Rs.460 0 in the pay band PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The relevant extract of the afore said Office Memorandum is reproduced below: - “3. Consequent upon the Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 , Department of Expenditure has received a large number of references from administrative ministries/departments proposing upgradation of the posts which were in the pre-revised sc ale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 by granting them grade pa y of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. The matter has been consider ed and it has now been decided that the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were grante d the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.420 0 in the pay band PB-2, will be granted grade pay of Rs.4600 i n the pay band PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.74 50- 11500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Further, in terms of the aforementione d 2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 8 of 10

provisions of CCS(RP) Rules,2008, in case a post already existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500, the posts being u pgraded from the scale of Rs.6500-10500 should be merged with th e post in the scale of Rs.7450-11500.”

12. Upon implementation of the 6 th CPC with effect from 01.01.2006, the pay scale of Rs.5500 –9000, which had been granted to the respondents/writ petitioners on their 1 st financial upgradation, was revised to PB-2 Rs.9300- 34800 with GP of Rs.4200. Although, at the time of the initia l implementation of the 6 th CPC, the pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 under the 5 th CPC were both placed in PB-2 with the same GP of Rs.4200, the position underwent a material change upon issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009. By the said Office Memorandum, the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 was exclude d from the merger and upgraded to PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 with GP of Rs .4600 with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. Consequently, the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 ceased to form part of the merged pay struc ture and thereafter constituted a higher pay scale in the pay hierarchy.

13. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner in WP(C) No.45 of 2015 was granted 1 st financial upgradation on 06.03.1994 and the respondent/writ petitioner in WP(C) No.46 of 2015 was g ranted 1 st financial upgradation on 04.09.1997. It is evident from the materials on record that on 01.01.2006 the respondents/writ petitioners i n both the writ petitions were placed in pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (5 th CPC) corresponding to the revised pay scale of PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 with GP of R s.4200 under the 6 th CPC. The respondent/writ petitioner in WP(C) No.45 of 2015 was granted 2 nd financial upgradation w.e.f. 06.03.2006 and the respondent/wri t petitioner in WP(C) No.46 of 2015 was granted 2 nd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.09.2009. It is only after the grant of 2 nd financial upgradation, they were placed in the pay scale of PB-2: Rs.9300-34800 with GP of Rs.460 0.

There is nothing on record to show that they were placed in t he pay scale of 2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 9 of 10

Rs.6500-10500 prior to grant of 2 nd financial upgradation. The grant of a higher grade pay within the same pay band constitutes a financia l upgradation. Under the framework of the MACP Scheme, moving to the next higher grade pay results in an increase in pay and counts a s an upgradation.

14. Paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme contemplates that promotions earned/upgradation granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradation of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commiss ion shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradation u nder MACP.

However, in the instant matter as it is apparent from the foregoing discussion that there was no merger of pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 under the 6 th CPC consequent to the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009 of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the question of application of paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme in the case of the respondents/writ petitioners does not arise. Hence, t he observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Jud ge in granting relief to the respondents/writ petitioners is not correct in the facts and situation of the present matter.

15. Insofar as contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/ writ petitioners with regard to the order dated 30.10.2012 of the Vice Chancellor, NEHU is concerned, it is apparent from the record that the sai d order was never circulated to any of the concerned employees and was w ithdrawn on the same date.

16. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners are also of not any help to the resp ondents/writ petitioners as the decisions have no bearing in the facts and s ituation of the present case.

17. In view of the discussions made above, we are unable to uph old the decision of the learned Single Judge and accordingly set aside t he impugned 2026:MLHC:836-DB

Page 10 of 10

Common Judgment dated 24.06.2024.

18. The WA No.58 of 2024 and WA No.59 of 2024 are allowed.

However, in the facts and situation of the matter, there will be no order as to costs.

(B. Bhattacharjee) (Revati Mohite Dere)

Judge Chief Justice

Meghalaya

07.08.2026

“Shrity,PS”

2026:MLHC:836-DB

Digitally signed by SHRITY

CH MOMIN

Date: 2026.08.07 17:17:10 IST

Signature Not Verified