Settled court-protected promotions cannot be disturbed by later circulars; notional service counts for MACP/NFU benefits.

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Original Application filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):-

“a) To declare that the impugned order circular letters dated 13.02.2025 and and 12,06.2025 issued by the respondent department as null and void and quash the same in the interest of justice. (Annexure-A-1 to Compilation No.-1)

b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the promotion given to the applicant's husband w.e.f. 06.12.2002 by the respondent themselves in terms of various directions issued earlier or in compliance of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated 02-03-2005 in WP No. 7963/2004 which has been protected by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 1970-75/2009 under Para no. 119(22) by the order dated 05-02-2020, now attained finality and cannot be disturbed in any manner and applicant's husband is also eligible for all consequential benefit.

c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the applicant's husband has not hit by the provision of the MACP Scheme referred to in the impugned letter/order dated 07-02-2018 & 14-07-2021 issued by the CBIC which have already been quashed and set aside in the Original Application No. 691/2023, 143/2024 & 937/2024 by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

d) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the applicant's husband is also eligible for grant of Non Functional Upgradation (NFG) of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 06.12.2016 after completion of 4 years regular service in grade pay of Rs. 4800/- as he was drawing the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- w.e.f. 06.12.2012 being identical case of M. Subramaniam vs UOI and others.

e. to issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay/refund all the recovered amount liable to be paid to the applicant after the death of her husband as per last pay drawn by him with interest of 18% out of payable amount to the applicant.”

3. The present Original Application has been necessitated as, despite the promotion of the applicant’s husband, late Mukesh Kumar, to the post of Inspector w.e.f. 06.12.2002 pursuant to a Review DPC conducted under judicial directions and despite such promotion having been protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.02.2020 in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1970–1975 of 2009, the respondents allegedly unsettled his service benefits by issuing clarifications dated 07.02.2018 and 14.07.2021 excluding notional service for the purpose of MACP, by issuing demotion/re-fixation orders without notice, by denying him 3rd MACP and consequential financial benefits on the basis of such clarifications, by not granting Non- Functional Upgradation/Non-Functional Selection Grade in Grade Pay ₹5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 06.12.2016 after completion of four years in Grade Pay ₹4800/- and by consequently reducing the family pension and withholding/curtailing gratuity payable to the applicant after the death of her husband on 19.04.2021, thereby adversely affecting her vested pensionary rights and compelling her to approach this Tribunal for restoration of service benefits and correction of retiral dues.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case are as under:-

4.1 The promotion granted to late Mukesh Kumar w.e.f. 06.12.2002 was made against pre-07.12.2002 vacancies through a duly constitu