The main legal point established in the judgment is that previous promotions and financial upgradations can affect the eligibility of an employee for benefits under the MACP scheme.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 26/10/2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for brevity) in Original Application No.170/00045/2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Respondent herein was appointed as a Group-D employee in the Postal Department on 17/6/1975. Thereafter, on 13/8/1979 he was selected as Postal Assistant after having appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). On 22/8/1995, he was granted financial upgradation under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) scheme after completion of 16 years of service as Postal Assistant. On 31/12/2005, he was given financial upgradation under Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) scheme on completion of 26 years of service w.e.f. 1/1/2006. The Respondent retired from service on 31/5/2014 after having attained the age of superannuation.

3. The Government of India introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme to the Central Government employees with effect from 1/9/2008, wherein every employee would be eligible for three financial upgradations after completion of ten/twenty/thirty years of service. The MACP replaced TBOP/BCR scheme.

4. In view of the aforementioned, the Respondent submitted a representation on 1/6/2017 for grant of MACP-III. Having been refused, the Respondent herein filed an application before the Tribunal for various reliefs, inter alia to direct the Respondents therein to extend the benefit under the MACP-III scheme. The Petitioners herein contested the said proceedings before the Tribunal and also filed their statement of objections.

5. The Tribunal, by its order dtd. 26/10/2018, noticing that the same was covered by its order dtd. 9/8/2018 passed in O.A.No.377/2017, allowed the application and ordered that the benefits be made available to the Respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

6. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Petitioners contended that the Respondent is not entitled for the benefits under the MACP-III scheme, as the same is prospective in operation and not retrospective. The Tribunal erred in allowing the application of the Respondent by relying on its earlier order passed in a similar case. A Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Bhimaraya V. Kattimani [W.P.No.226631/2020 C/W W.P.No.226627/2020, D.D: 5/7/2022] has already decided the same and the said order is applicable to the present case. Hence, he sought for allowing of the writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the issue arising in the present writ petition is covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Faiyaz Hussain[W.P.No.226628/2020, D.D: 8/2/2022] , wherein the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal to decide the matter in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma and Others (2021) 5 SCC 579 and The Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. vs. K. Sudheesh Kumar and Others [Civil Appeal No.442/2022, D.D: 28/1/2022] and accordingly, the present matter also requires to be remanded. He further submits that with regard to the MACP scheme, a clarification dtd. 6/9/2021 has been issued by the Government of India which clarifies all the scenarios, which aspect can be considered by the Tribunal.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties, the question that arises for consideration is:

a) "Whether the order dtd. 26/10/2018 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.170/00045/2018 required to be interfered with?"

9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the parties as well as perused the material available on record. The essential facts not being in dispute, inasmuch as the Respondent was appointed on 17/6/1975