Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.1348/2023 Order reserved on : 12.11.2025 Order pronounced on : 08.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Meenakshi Shukla, W/o Shri P.K. Shukla, R/o C-903, Avj Heights Sector Zeta-1, Greater Noida, UP-201306.

…Applicant (By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj with the applicant in person)

Versus

1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002.

2. The Principal Secretary (Education), Department of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.

3. The Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.

4. The Director of Vigilance, Directorate of Vigilance, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 4^th Floor, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. H.A. Khan)

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant joined the respondent MCD in pursuance to her selection by the SSC as Primary Teacher – Assistant Teacher on 09.01.1991. She was promoted as TGT on 23.02.2007 and is working as such till date. She was granted her first MACP on 09.01.2003 and second MACP on 09.01.2011. The applicant is stated to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in October, 2025.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an FIR No.1595/2015 was lodged against the applicant at P.S. Rajouri Garden and the applicant was under judicial custody for two days from 04.01.2016 to 06.01.2016. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the applicant which led to imposition of penalty upon her. It is submitted that not even the testimony of the first witness has been concluded as yet though the trial began in November, 2015 and the report of the disciplinary committee which set up on 10.08.2015 has not yet been submitted.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was entitled for grant of 3^rd MACP on 09.01.2021, and therefore, she applied for the same with all the documents, however, the same was not granted to her. The respondents are not deliberately granting vigilance clearance in the case of the applicant to deprive her of the legitimate right. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant OA seeking the following relief(s) :-

“(i) Allow the present OA.

(ii) Direct the respondent no.4 to grant Vigilance Clearance for Financial Upgradation/MACP.

(iii) Direct the respondent No.2&3 to grant the benefits if the 3^rd MACP as per the CCS rules upon clearance from the vigilance committee.

(iv) Direct the respondents no.1 to oversee and act upon the said orders and implement the same.

Pass any other order/orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the applicant has already retired, non grant of MACP during her service would affect her retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondents have miserably failed to observe that the report of the vigilance committee is subject to the result of the criminal case. While the same is pending since the last nine years, not even the first prosecution witness has been testified before the Court. He submitted that there are total 40 witnesses which are to be brought on record before the defendant evidence is even initiated. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the vigilance clearance is subject to the result of the criminal case, and in the absence of vigilance clearance, the applicant is not being considered for 3rd MACP.

5. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the vigilance clearance status report is issued by the Department to the applicant on 04.072023 for issuance of passport. He submitted that the