CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 3938/2018 This the 08th Day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Shri Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

1. Shri Krishan, ATI, PT No. 39922, PGD Aged about 57 years, Group C R/o House no. 138, Kavita Colony Nangloi, Delhi 110041 …Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Mittal)

Versus

1. Delhi Transport Corporation IP Estate, New Delhi 110002 Through Chairman-cum-Managing Director)

…Respondent (By Advocate : Mr. Ayusha Kumar, Ms. Natasha Goel)

ORDER (ORAL)

Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

1. The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

“(i) Quash order dated 12.01.2017 (Annexure-A1) to the extent it grants 3rd MACP w.e.f. 02.07.2016. (ii) Direct the respondents to fix the 3rd MACP of the applicant with effect from July 2013, and to re-fix his salary accordingly and to pay arrears of salary alongwith interest.”

2. Factual Matrix:-

2.1 Brief facts of the case is that the applicant joined the service of the respondents on 14.07.1983. In 2002, there was a disciplinary case in which punishments was imposed on 30.07.2002. The punishment was “withholding of one next due increment with cumulative effect” . The respondents have introduced the ACP scheme w.e.f August 2002 and applicant claims that he should have got ACP w.e.f from August 2002 as he has completed the necessary years of service. However, the respondents granted the 1st ACP on 30.07.2005. Subsequently, the Govt. of India introduced MACP Scheme w.e.f 01.09.2008 and according to the Scheme, after completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, the Govt. employee is entitled for grant of financial upgradation if he has not got any promotion during the intervening periods. The respondents granted the 2nd MACP w.e.f. 02.07.2010. The 3rd MACP in July 2017 w.e.f.

02.07.2016.

2.2. The applicant submitted a representation dated 14.11.2017 to the respondents seeking correcting his pay fixation particularly granting of 3rd MACP from appropriate dates. The respondents never responded to his representation. Being aggrieved he filed the OA seeking the aforementioned relief.

3. On admission, notices were issued to the respondents, who have filed their counter affidavits and the applicant also filed rejoinder thereof.

4. Submissions by learned counsel for the applicant:-

4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was punished with punishment of withholding of one next due increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 30.07.2002 and his MACP was delayed by 4 years and he was granted 1st ACP in 30.07.2005. He has already been twice punished for the same kind of indiscipline. First, he was imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment and subsequently his 2nd ACP was delayed by nearly 3 years.

4.2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that all his Annual Performance Reports, were within the benchmark as per the norms for getting ACP at the appropriate time, but despite that he has got 1st ACP delayed by 3 years.

Subsequently, he should have got the 3rd ACP after completion of 30 years i.e. July 2013.

However, the respondents granted the 3rd MACP in July 2016. Again the respondents committed the double jeopardy by punishing the applicant for delaying 4 years for granting the MACP. He refers the OM dated 19.05.2009 issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India introducing the MACP Scheme. He particularly refers to Para 11 of the OM which reads as under:-

“11. It is clarified that no past cases would be re-opened. Further, while implementing the MACP Scheme, the differences in pay scales on account of grant of financial upgradation under the old ACP Scheme (of August 1999) and under the MACP Scheme within the same cadre shall not be construed as an anomaly.”

Accordingly, he states that all the past records should be over looked and the applicant should have been given the MACP w.e.f.