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 hardship and injustice.

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 granted TBOP and BCR financial upgradations on completion of 16 years and 26 years of service respectively. While the above TBOP and BCR financial upgradation schemes were in force, the government introduced Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “ACPS”) with upgradation on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service for cadres not governed by TBOP and BCR schemes. The ACP scheme was modified by MACPS pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations and was made effective from 01.09.2008. The TBOP and BCR schemes were simultaneously withdrawn. In terms of the MACPS approved by the government, the Central government employees will be given first financial upgradation after completion of 10 years of service, the second financial upgradation after completion of 20 years of service and the third financial upgradation after 30 years of service.

The petitioner rejected the claim of the respondents to the third MACPS benefit on the premise that the respondents were ineligible inasmuch the respondents declined to accept the LSG promotion. Admittedly, all the respondents were offered promotion to LSG in the year 2007 and in the case of N.Subbarayan in the year 2008. The respondents refused the above offer of promotion to LSG. Admittedly, at the time when LSG promotion was offered, the respondents were drawing higher pay, whereas, the pay scale for LSG promotion post was lesser than the pay that was being drawn by the respondents at that point of time. The respondents thus declined the promotion. The following table is relevant in this regard:

B. Case of the Petitioners:

a. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Tribunal primarily on the ground that Para 25 of Annexure-I to the letter of the Department of Posts, dated 18.09.2009 provided that, if a regular promotion was offered but refused by the employee, then no financial upgradation shall be allowed inasmuch as the employe