ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

11.

OA 70/2022 with MA 110/ 2022 Army No 15159016K Ex Sep Raj Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Resident of Village, Post &T ehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar, Rajasthan -301 405 . Applicant Versus

1. UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi- 110 011

2. The PCDA (P), DraupadiG hat, Prayagraj, UP- 211 014

3. The Record Officer, Records The Artillery, PIN 9088 02, c/o 56A PO Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Budh Ram, Swayamber Jat, Advocate Ms. SunitaC haudhary, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Brij Bihari Sharma, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER ()

HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

ORDER

03.11.2025

1, Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant 1* MACP (Naik Grade) wef 03/9/2010 on completión of eight years of service and 2nd MACP (Havildar Grade) wef 03/9/2018 on completion of i6 years of service by considering unwilling certificate rendered by the applicant on 16/11/2016for further promotion to the next rank as null and void in the interest of natural justice. He has also prayed for grant of all consequential benefits to the applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 03/9/2002 and was discharged from service on completion of 17 years and 28 days of service on 30/9/2019 and was granted service pension for life. The applicant approached the Respondents through various means including a legal notice for grant of 2nd MACP in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 13/6/2011. but no heed was paid to the request of the applicant. In this regard the applicant has placed reliance on the Order dated 09/12/202 1 passed by this Bench in the case of Ex Naik (TS) Rajesh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors, in OA No 01 of 2020 as also in the case of OA No 02 of 2020, decided on 09/12/2020 filed by Ex Naik (TS) Gajendra Singh Vs UOI &O rs. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed the OA, praying for relief.

The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing

3.

the basic facts, submitted that the applicant was discharged from service on 30/9/2019 on fulfilling the conditions of enrolment under Rule 13 (3) Item III ()) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 17 years and 28 days of service. He was granted service pension in the rank of Lance Naik (MACP Naik) in Group Y, which has been revised from time to time. As per Para 21 of IHO of MoD (Army) letter dated 13/6/2011, if an individual refuses promotion, MACP will also be denied. If an individual refuses promotion after MACP, earlier MACP will not be withdrawn. However, he will not be eligible for further MACP. If he again accepts promotion, MACP will also be deferred by th¿ period of debarment due to refusal. In the instant case, on occurring the vacarncy for promotion, the applicant had given unwillingness for further promotion to next higher rank, ie, to the rank of Nik in writing on 16/11/2016, which makes him ineligible for grant of MACP (Havildar Grade). Moreover, the applicant, Was also fully aware about his unwillingness for further promotion to the next rank and, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefits of 2nd MACP of Havildar Grade in accordance with ibid provisions. Under the circumstances, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA with costs.

4. We have heardt he counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the Respondents has placed on record a copy of the UnwillingnesS certificate dated 16/11/2016 rendered by the applicant for further promotion, which was also countersigned by the Commanding Officer of the Unit. In the unwillingness certificate, the applicant had unequivocally accepted the fat that "am unwilling for further promotion to the rank of Naik against stagnation panel promotion and have no objection in case