Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3718

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V Bhairavia, Judicial Member, Hukum Singh Meena, Administrative Member
Vrajlal Parbatbhai Patoliya – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.374 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.B.Nawani
For the Respondents: R.R.Patel

Under MACPS guidelines, if an employee refuses an offer of regular promotion while being aware of the existence of the career progression scheme, they are ineligible for financial up-gradation, as they have not stagnated due to a lack of promotion opportunities.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) - Denial of 3rd MACP and order of recovery - Applicant declined regular promotion offered prior to implementation of MACP Scheme - Whether refusal of promotion before implementation of MACPS creates a bar for financial up-gradation - Para 25 of MACP guidelines clearly provides that if regular promotion offered was refused before becoming entitled to financial up-gradation, no financial up-gradation shall be allowed - Distinction drawn between cases where promotion was refused without awareness of scheme versus where the scheme was already in existence - As the applicant was aware of financial up-gradation benefits (ACPS/MACPS) existing at the time of refusal of regular promotion, the benefit of 3rd MACP is not admissible from the original date of entitlement. (Paras 1, 8, 9, 12.1)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Postal Assistant, sought 3rd MACP benefit citing 30 years of service. He was initially granted the benefit, but subsequently, the respondents revoked it and initiated recovery of Rs.67,642/- on the grounds that the applicant had refused an offer of regular promotion to the LSG cadre in April 2008, rendering him ineligible under the MACP Scheme guidelines. The applicant relied on rulings from other Tribunals where refusal of promotion prior to the implementation of the Scheme did not bar up-gradation.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that unlike the cases relied upon by the applicant, the applicant was aware of the existing ACP/MACP Scheme benefits at the time of his refusal. Therefore, in accordance with the specific provisions of the MACP guidelines (para 25), he was ineligible for the financial up-gradation upon refusal of the offered promotion.

Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to the 3rd MACP benefit despite having declined a regular promotion prior to the specific implementation date of the MACP Scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee who refuses an offered regular promotion while being aware of the existing financial up-gradation schemes (ACP/MACP) is bound by the restrictive conditions of the Scheme guidelines, which deny financial up-gradation in cases of refusal of promotion.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of claim for macp benefits and defense regarding refusal of promotion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. application of macp criteria regarding refusal of promotion and prior awareness of schemes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

O R D E R

Per : Hon’ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

1. Being aggrieved by the order Nos.B2/1/Misc/2012 dated 13.08.2012 and B2/77/MACPS/Review/PA/2013 dated 29.10.2013 issued by the Superintendent of Post Office, Junagad whereby the applicant was denied the benefit of 3rd MACP in addition to the order for recovery of an amount of Rs.67642/-, he has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1965 seeking following relief:-

i) May be pleased to admit and allow this original application.

ii) May pleased to declare the impugned Orders No.

a) B2/1/Misc/2012 dated 13.08.2012 issued by Supdt. Of Post-offices, Junagadh and annexed at Annexure A-1.

b) B2/77/MACPS/Review/PA/2013 dated 29-10-2013 issued by Supdt. of Post-offices, Junagadh and annexed at Annexure A-2 as unjust, unfair, unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary, vindictive, discriminative and bad in law and to quash and set-aside the same.

iii) May be pleased to direct the respondents to restore higher financial up-gradation of 3rd MACP from 1-9-2008.

v) May be pleased to direct the respondents to refund entire amount of Rs. 67,642/- (Rs. Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Two) to the applicant.

vi) May be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed appropriate.”

2. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was recruited and joined as a Postal Assistant in Junagadh Postal Division from 17.02.1977 and he was initially posted at Unna Sub Post-Office. Subsequently, the applicant had worked in different Post Offices at Junagadh Postal Division and retired as a Sub Postmaster at Azad Chowk Post-Office, Junagad on 31.08.2016. Meanwhile, the applicant had earned financial up-gradation of TBOP and BCR in the year 1993 and 2003 respectively. Thereafter, the applicant was offered regular promotion of lower selection Grade (hereinafter referred to as LSG) in April 2008. However, due to the unavoidable circumstances, the applicant had not accepted the said promotion and the same was declined vide his application dated 01.05.2008 (Annexure-A/3).

2.2 Further, the respondent department had introduced Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘MACPS’) vide their Commn.No.4-7/(MACPS)/2009-PCC dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure-A/4) wherein financial up-gradation is provided to the employees on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively which are designated as 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACPs and made effective retrospectively from 01.09.2008.

2.3 The applicant had already completed 30 years of service on 17.02.2007 and accordingly, he was placed under the 3rd MACP financial up-gradation from 01.09.2008 with GP of Rs.4600/- vide Supdt. of Post Office, Junagadh Memo No.B2/77/MACP/PA/19.08. to 31.3.-10/2009-10 dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure-A/5).

2.4 Applicant further contended that the respondents issued an order for recovery of Rs.2000/- from the salary of the applicant in the month of July, 2012 and being aggrieved by the order, the applicant submitted his application on 31.07.2012 to the Superintendent of Post Office, Junagadh and respondent No.4 herein seeking details of the recovery effected from salary of July 2012.

2.5 The applicant further contended that the Superintendent of Post Office, Junagadh and Respondent No.4 had stated that the applicant has erroneously given 3rd MACP as he had refused promotion of LSG and as such, recovery of excess paid amount of Rs.67,642/- had been effected towards overpayment of salary. The applicant thereafter promoted as LSG and was posted as Sub Postmaster, Azad Chowk Post-Office, Junagadh from 16.12.2012.

2.6 Being aggrieved by the order of recovery dated 13.08.2012 applicant filed a represe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3718

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALJayesh V Bhairavia, Judicial Member, Hukum Singh Meena, Administrative MemberVrajlal Parbatbhai Patoliya – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No.374 of 2017

Under MACPS guidelines, if an employee refuses an offer of regular promotion while being aware of the existence of the career progression scheme, they are ineligible for financial up-gradation, as they have not stagnated due to a lack of promotion opportunities.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V Bhairavia, Judicial Member, Hukum Singh Meena, Administrative Member
Vrajlal Parbatbhai Patoliya – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.374 of 2017