Back
S. VAIDYANATHAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Union of India, Rep. by the Chief Postmaster General, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
C. Ramasamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.P.No.4971 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records dated 18.08.2016 and made in O.A.No.620 of 2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same.)
Common Order
Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
1. The above batch of writ petitions are filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.A.Nos.620 to 624 of 2014 dated 18.08.2016 insofar as it has directed grant of 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “MACPS”) to the respondents, though the offer of Lower Selection Grade (hereinafter referred to as “LSG”) promotion was declined by the respondents.
A. Schemes framed by Government from time to time:
The Government introduced various incentive schemes from time to time, intended to relieve stagnation in service. The present batch of writ petitions are concerned with the scope of one such scheme viz, MACPS. Prior to the introduction of MACPS, other financial upgradation schemes prevailed viz., Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) and Biennal Cadre Review (BCR). The respondents herein were gr
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consequences for refusal of promotion under MACPS should apply only to refusals made after the implementation of MACPS, in order to avoid ....
Refusal of regular promotion offered after MACP entitlement date does not bar financial upgradation, as employee had stagnated; rule applies only if promotion refused before entitlement.
Notional promotions protected by Supreme Court count as regular service for MACP and NFSG benefits.
The MACPS provides for financial upgradations based on service duration, distinct from promotions, and prior benefits under ACP must be considered for eligibility.
MACPS regular service commences from regular absorption post-training; prior promotions counted against financial upgradations; no entitlement if not stagnant after multiple promotions.
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.
The MACP Scheme is an incentive-based condition of service effective from 01.09.2008, and not a component of pay structure, denying retrospective claims from 01.01.2006.
Movements between Loco Pilot posts in same Grade Pay (Rs.4200) are lateral inductions, not promotions; past upgradations in merged scales ignored under MACP para 5 over para 8 for stagnation relief.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
