Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7241
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K.HARIPAL, V.RAMA MATHEW, JJ
C.Sreekumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.180/00553/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.A.K.Preetha
For the Respondents: Mr.V.A.Shaji
The court upheld that the MACP Scheme’s provisions regarding financial upgradations are prospective, and previous promotions cannot be considered for enhanced benefits retrospectively.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act - Modification of service benefits under MACP Scheme - Applicability and interpretation of Clause 5 concerning financial upgradations and promotions under the MACP - Applicant claimed entitlement to 2nd financial upgradation based on service history and promotions given where pay scales merged. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Election of proper provisions - Tribunal found that remedies sought were unsustainable as per the MACP provisions. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to challenge the rejection of his request for Applying MACP benefits retroactively after having obtained two promotions. He contended that the implementation of the MACP effectively negated prior promotions and sought adjustments based on total service, arguing for retrospective application of benefits.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the MACP Scheme was operational retrospectively only until 31.08.2008, and sequential promotions constituted as a single promotion consequently denying the applicant's request for earlier financial upgradation.
Issues: The tribunal assessed the legality of the cut-off date for implementing MACP parameters against the applicant's claims for retrospective application and the interpretations of financial upgradation due to merged grades.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the proper interpretation of the MACP Scheme limits financial upgradations based on the provisions therein, confirming that prior promotions did not include the benefits claimed for MACP eligibility.
Result: The O.A is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of previous litigation and macp implementation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's claims based on macp clauses. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents' defense against entitlement for upgradation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. tribunal's ruling on inapplicability of retrospective benefits. (Para 7) |
| 5. final judgment and dismissal of the o.a. (Para 8) |
O R D E R
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER This is second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant has filed O.A.No.180/226/2019 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.03.2019 directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation and take a decision in accordance with law within the time frame stipulated. A copy of the order is produced as Annexure A-7. In compliance of the directions contained in Annexure A-7, the respondents passed Annexure A-8 order dated 07.05.2019 rejecting the request of the applicant for the 2nd MACP benefit in Grade Pay Rs.4800/- with effect from 01.12.2001. Aggrieved by the Annexure A-8 order the applicant has filed the present O.A.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under - The applicant commenced service as Section Controller in the pay scale of Rs.470-700, which is equivalent to Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as per 6th Central Pay Commission, on 19.07.1988 after undergoing three years training as Traffic Apprentice. It is stated that he was promoted as Deputy Chief Controller on 01.12.1991 in the pay scale Rs.2000-3200, which is equivalent to Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- as per 6th Central Pay Commission and further promoted as Chief Controller on 05.05.2003 in the pay scale Rs.2375-3450, which is equivalent to Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- as per 6th Central Pay Commission. He submits that on implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as per RBE No.103/2008, the pay scales granted to him on 01.12.1991 and 05.05.2003 were merged to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and therefore he has got only one promotion since his date of entry into regular service.
3. It is submitted that the respondents had introduced and implemented Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) with effect from 01.09.2008. He relies on Clause 1 and Clause 5 of the Scheme which reads as under -
“1. There shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. Financial upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same Grade Pay.”
“5. Promotions earned/upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same Grade Pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS.”
4. The applicant submits that going by Clause 5 above the second promotion given to the applicant cannot be reckoned as financial upgradation for the purpose of implementation of MACP Scheme as the Grade Pay in the post of Deputy Chief Controller and the Chief Controller were merged into the Pay Band with Grade Pay Rs.4600/-. Hence, he claimed that on completion of 10 years in the Pay Band with Grade Pay Rs.4600/- ie., from 01.12.1991, he is entitled for 2nd financial upgradation on 01.12.2001 whereas he was granted the benefit only from 01.09.2008. Highlighting the anomaly he submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent dated 19.08.2013, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-4. In response the respondents vide Annexure A-5 dated 31.12.2013 issued a letter to the applicant stating that as MACP Scheme was introduced from 01.09.2008 only, it cannot be given retrospective effect and that his eligibility for 2nd MACP would be with effect from 01.09.2008. Further, the 3rd MACP would be granted to him with effect from 01.09.2018 only on completion of 10 years from 2nd MACP.
5. The applicant submits that Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-8 are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. He furth
