This application having been heard on 4th March, 2026 the Tribunal on 11th March 2026 delivered the following :

O R D E R

HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Briefly stated the applicant in the O.A seeks granting of 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008 to the Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with interest @ 12% p.a within a time frame and consequently to revise the pension and other retirement benefits including leave encashment amount to him based on the Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-. This would be consequent to the quashing of Annexure A-9 order which holds that he was 'unfit' for the 2nd financial upgradation as he was not meeting the required benchmark of 'Very Good' throughout the period.

2. The factual matrix is as under – the applicant is a retired Purchase Officer of the Department of Atomic Energy. He joined service on 01.03.1990 as Assistant Purchase Officer and was later promoted as Purchase Officer on 01.03.1997. The pay fixation on promotion is produced as Annexure A-1 dated 04.02.1999. He retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.2013 after a qualifying service of 23 years and 1 month. At the time of retirement he was drawing pay in PB-3 with a Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- and was granted a monthly pension of Rs.18490/-, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-2.

3. The next promotion of the applicant would have been to the post of Deputy Director in the Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-. Although he was the senior most Purchase Officer as per the seniority list at the relevant period he was overlooked continuously. He, therefore, filed O.A.No.1227/2011 before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. The said O.A was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Director as per rules by not giving effect to the grade recorded in the ACRs for the years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. Consequently a Review DPC was conducted and the claim of the applicant was rejected. This decision was challenged by filing O.A.No.1139/2013 before this Tribunal. The said O.A was dismissed as per order dated 28.09.2016, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-3. The relevant portion of the order reads as under -

“19. ......There was only one post. Undoubtedly it was a selection post. There was another person would could secure more than 80 marks and so he was found fit by the DPC. The benchmark fixed was 80. Since the applicant could get only 73 marks (even if it is to be treated as 75), the decision taken by the DPC in holding that the applicant was unfit for promotion cannot be found fault with. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was the only candidate who was a direct recruitee and who had secured rank No.1 in the said selection but he was denied promotion. But as the review DPC found his total grading far below 80, the benchmark fixed, we find it unable to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant. We have gone through the entire DPC file to see whether the applicant was unjustly denied promotion; but we could not see any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the review DPC which held on 19.08.2013.”

4. While so, the MACP Scheme came into force with effect from 01.09.2008 based on the recommendations of the 6th CPC, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-4. As per the Scheme, there shall be 3 financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. Since the applicant had completed more than 10 years in the same Grade Pay when the MACP Scheme was introduced (first promotion was with effect from 01.03.1997), it is submitted that the applicant was eligible to be considered for the 2nd financial upgradation under the Scheme. Further, since he was not promoted as Deputy Director, he submitted a representation for granting him financial upgradation with effect from 01.09.2008 to