ORDER

Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):

In this OA,the applicant has prayed for grant of benefit of SecondMACP after his completion of 20 years of service in the year 2004 and arrears thereof with interest at the rate of 8%.

He has prayed for quashing the order dated 06.2010 (impugned (2) order at Annexure-1). This order informs him about his case having been put before the screening committee and the committee not finding him fit for grant of MACP-II due to unsatisfactory service record and a pending punishment against him. The applicant states that there was no case pending against him in the year 2004, when the 2nd MACP became due.

The alleged act for which the disciplinary action was taken, the disciplinary action and the punishment, all happened in the years 2006-2007, which are much after the due date of MACP in the year 2004. He has also claimed, in his rejoinder, that under the new MACP Scheme there is no need for having a satisfactory service or any other condition to satisfy fitness for promotion and only completion of regular service is enough for grant of MACP.

2. The respondents have denied the claims of the applicant. It is stated that the MACP Scheme itself came into force, as per recommendations of the 6 th Pay Commission, w.e.f.

01.09.2008, and all benefits under this scheme could be given only prospectively. Since the applicant was not found fit for promotion at the time his case was considered for promotion by the screening committee, he could not be given the benefit under the scheme. The reply states that 5 years services were considered for grant of benefit of MACP-II and the screening committee did not find the applicant fit for promotion owing to (3) “Punishment current/below bench mark”. The reply annexes the APAR record of the applicant at Annexure R/7. The reply further states, by way of confirming the unsatisfactory nature of the applicant’s service record, that following a review of the punishment given in the year 2007, a major penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed on the applicant w.e.f. 10.06.2010. This punishment, when challenged before this Tribunal, has been upheld by this Tribunal (by its orders dated 31.03.2015, Annexure R/8).

3. The matter was finally heard on 19.08.2021. The learned counsel for the applicant mainly argued that the new scheme of MACP did not require any other condition to be fulfilled before grant of MACP and completion of regular service of 10/20/30 years were enough for grant of I, II and III MACPs. He drew our attention specifically to the following lines of the concerned OM (Ann. R/3, page 57 of the Paper Book):

“…The Government has considered the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission on the Assured Career Progression and accepted the same with further modification to grant three financial upgradations under the revised Scheme at Intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service….”

4. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that it was necessary for an employee to fulfil other conditionsfor fitness too, for grant of MACP. Our attention was drawn to paragraphs (4) 17 and 18 of the salient features of the MACP Scheme (Annexure R-3, at page 63 of the Paper Book), which are reproduced below:

“17. The financial upgradation would be on non-

funcational basis subject to fitness, in the hierarchy of grade pay within the PB-1. Thereafter for upgradation under the MACPS the benchmark of ‘good’ would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs.6600/- in PB-3. The benchmark will be ‘Very Good’ for financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.7600 and above.

18. In the matter of disciplinary/penalty proceedings, grant of benefit under the MACPS shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion. Such cases shall, therefore, be regulated under the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and instructions issued thereunder.”

5. After go