Regular service rendered in a previous post within the same department, when followed by movement to a new post via departmental examination rather than open recruitment, must be counted towards the total length of service for calculating eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

O R D E R

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

The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Postal Assistant on 17.10.1983 after completing training, and his services were later regularized. He worked satisfactorily throughout with a clean service record and no adverse remarks.

2. The applicant was promoted as Stenographer Grade III on 15.01.1988 after qualifying the departmental examination. Thereafter, the Government introduced the Assured Career Progression Scheme on 09.08.1999 to grant financial upgradation to employees who did not receive timely promotions. Under this scheme, the applicant was granted the first financial upgradation on 28.12.2001 and his pay was fixed accordingly. Thereafter, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced on 19.05.2009, providing three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service. The applicant completed 30 years of service on 17.10.2013 and claimed that he became entitled to the third financial upgradation from that date by including his earlier service as Postal Assistant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant made several representations starting from 26.07.2013 and again in 2014 requesting grant of the third MACP benefit, but the respondents replied that his case would be considered only after completion of 30 years of service, without properly counting his earlier service. Despite repeated representations dated 03.02.2014, 29.05.2014, 07.08.2014 and 12.09.2014, the respondents did not grant the benefit and issued replies reiterating their stand. The applicant also pointed out that similarly situated employees and even juniors had been granted the said benefit by counting their past service, but the same was denied to him, resulting in discrimination.

4. Thereafter, the applicant submitted further representations and sought information under the Right to Information Act on 20.05.2015 and 23.06.2015 regarding the status of his case. The respondents replied on 03.06.2015 and 28.07.2015 stating that his case was under examination and that records had earlier been misplaced, and no final decision could be communicated. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-

“i) direct/command the Respondents to extend the benefits of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 19.05.2009, Annexure - A-9 and regulate/revised the dates of grant of 1st MACP and 2nd MACP;

ii) direct/command the Respondents to grant the 3rd MACP to the applicant by including his previous service on the post of Postal Assistant and thereafter, the 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of regular service w.e.f. 17.10.2013;

iii) direct/command the Respondents to make payment of the resultant arrears with interest @ 24% p.a.

iv) any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant alongwith heavy costs against the Respondents, in the interest of justice.”

5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant had already completed the required 30 years of regular service on 17.10.2013 and that his past service as Postal Assistant must be counted for grant of the third MACP. He alleged that the action of the respondents in denying this benefit is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the applicable rules and policies, especially when similarly placed employees have been granted the same benefit.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the similarly situated employees/juniors of the applicant have been granted the benefit of financial upgradations by taking into consideration their initial service rendered by them on their previous posts of Postal Assistant/LDC etc., however, the respondents are not considering the service rendered by him on t