Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3895
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K.Haripal, V.Rama Mathew, JJ
S. Narendran – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./114/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.R.Hariraj, Ms.Thanuja Roshan George, Mr.Viswajith C.K., Ms.Gisha G Raj, Mr.Rejivue K.C., Ms.Alina Anna Kose, Ms.Vidya A.K.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.K.Ramkumar, SPC
The Tribunal ruled that promotions should not be disregarded for financial upgradation under the MACP scheme, affirming entitlement to enhanced grade pay based on prior directives.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme - Claim for grade pay enhancement - Applicant, a retired Assistant Director, contended denial of grade pay increase based on promotion under MACP due to merger of posts - Tribunal emphasized that applicant entitled to grade pay of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- based on prior decisions and directives from higher authorities. (Paras 3, 11, 12)
(B) Promotion and Upgradation - Tribunal ruled that promotions should not be disregarded for financial upgradation under MACP when posts are equated - The essence of the MACP scheme is to ensure fair compensation reflective of responsibilities. (Paras 4, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant retired after 30 years of service and sought grade pay enhancements based on the MACP scheme, which was denied due to interpretations of promotion and merger of pay scales.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed respondents to decide on the applicant's claim for grade pay enhancements in accordance with prior directives within four months.
Issues: The primary issues were the interpretation of promotion under the MACP scheme and the applicability of prior Tribunal orders regarding grade pay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal concluded that the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the MACP scheme, and previous directives must be honored in determining grade pay.
Result: Application disposed of with a direction to respondents to decide on the claim.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's service history and grade pay claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims based on promotion and macp scheme. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents' opposition to applicant's claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on the applicant's claims. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's decision and directive to respondents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal
Applicant is a former Assistant Director, retired from the service of the Department of Posts on 31.07.2021. He commenced service as Sorting Assistant on 15.10.1982, then promoted as Inspector of Posts, IPO for short, on 18.03.1995 after undergoing Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, LDCE. He was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, ASPO on 19.03.2004. On completion of 30 years of service he was granted 3rd MACP on 19.10.2012 and thereafter was promoted as Assistant Director in 2019.
2. According to the applicant, on the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the grade pay of IPO was enhanced from Rs.4200 to 4600 with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. By virtue of clause 5 of Annexure-I of Annexure-A2, the salient features of the MACP, promotion/upgradation granted under the ACP scheme in the past to the grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradation of posts recommended by the 6th CPC shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under the modified ACPs. Annexure-A3 suggests that the grade pay of IPO was upgraded to Rs.4600 in PB-I by order dated 24.10.2017 with effect from 01.01.2006. Grade pay of Rs.4600 is the same grade pay granted to the promotion post of IPO, the post of ASPO. That means, by virtue of clause 5 of Annexure-I of Annexure-A2, promotion of the applicant as ASPO cannot be reckoned for the purpose of grant of MACP. So, on completion of 20 years and 30 years of service he should have been granted grade pay of Rs.4800 and 5400 respectively. When that was denied, he approached the respondents with Annexure-A4 representation and Annexure-A5 reminder. That representation was disposed of rejecting the claim by the 2nd respondent through Annexure-A1 communication dated 25.01.2022.
3. Annexure-A1 is impugned in this proceedings. According to the applicant, when the pay scale of feeder category and promotion category has been equated, an appointment from one category to another category cannot be treated as promotion under the financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. Referring to Annexure-A7 order of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal, it is pointed out that ASPO and Superintendent of Post Offices are found entitled to get revised grade pay of Rs.4800 and 5400 respectively with effect from 01.01.2006. Refusal to grant the same is unjust, unfair, illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary. So, according to the applicant, benefit of Annexure-A7 should be extended to him.
4. Thus he seeks to quash Annexure-A1 and a direction to the respondents to grant him grade pay of Rs.4800/- from 01.01.2006 and Rs.5400/- with effect from 19.10.2012 in accordance with the directions in Annexure-A7. Alternatively he seeks to grant him MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 and 19.10.2012 granting grade pay of Rs.4800 and 5400 respectively and to disburse arrears of pay and allowances with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
5. Respondents have opposed the application. Official profile of the applicant is not disputed. According to them, he has already been earned three promotions/upgradations in service and has not stagnated in his career. His representation was considered and rejected by Annexure-A1 speaking order. Through the communication dated 23.10.2018, Annexure-R1, the Directorate had clarified that the grade pay of 4600/- alone was granted to IP officials during the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015, later, finding that ASPO carries higher duties and responsibilities on promotion is entitled to get fixation benefit.
6. Referring to clause 5 of Annexure-I of Annexure-A2 it is submitted that the matter was take
