IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 08.12.2025 Pronounced on : 12.12.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W .P. N o. 4054 of 20 19 and W.M.P. No. 4504 of 2019 R. Kumar … Petitioner Versus

1.The Managing Director, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., No.4, Ayyar Koil Street, Raja Nagar, Puducherry – 13.

2.The General Manager, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., No.4, Ayyar Koil Street, Raja Nagar, Puducherry – 13. … Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in F.No.304/PRTC/Admn/2017/595 Puducherry dated 31.12.2018 and quash the same.

For Applicant(s): Mr. K. Sasindran For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Sreedhar, Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 27.03.1987 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Checking Inspector in the year 1993; that he was thereafter promoted as Superintendent on 01.06.2005 and continued in the said post till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024, viz., during the pendency of the present writ petition.

3. Petitioner contends that the Central Government introduced a scheme called Modified Assured Carrier Programming Scheme (for short, MACP) with the objective of granting monetary benefit to Government servants who remain in the same post for a long period without promotion; that as per the Scheme, an employee who continues in the same post for 10 years without promotion becomes eligible for financial upgradation in pay; that the aforesaid Scheme of Central Government was adopted by the respondent-Corporation by extending the benefits to its employees.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, since he was appointed as Superintendent on 01.06.2005 and has been working in the same post for more than 10 years, he is eligible for being granted financial upgradation with effect from 01.06.2015; that the respondents did not extend the said benefit to him on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against him; that the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding was subsequently dropped vide order of the 1^st respondent dated 18.12.2017; and thus, he became eligible for being granted financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.06.2015.

5. The petitioner contended that, upon dropping of the disciplinary proceeding, the 1^st respondent passed an order dated 13.02.2018 granting him second financial upgradation with effect from 01.06.2015, subject to the conditions stipulated therein and that he was granted all monetary benefits including arrears.

6. The petitioner contends that, although he was granted monetary benefits under MACP Scheme pursuant to the proceedings dated 13.02.2018, the 1^st respondent, by proceeding dated 31.12.2018, cancelled the second financial upgradation granted to him under the MACP Scheme, stating that a charge-sheet was pending against him on the date of issuance of the second MACP; and that the 1^st respondent by the impugned proceeding further directed to pay him a sum of Rs.96,896/- immediately without issuing any show cause notice or affording him an opportunity. Thus, the impugned proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. Despite service of notice to the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that, since, a criminal case vide C.C. No.235 of 2013 was pending against the petitioner for various offences under the Indian Penal Code as on the date of issuance of second MACP, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned proceedings withdrawing the grant of second MACP and also directed the petitioner to remit back to the Corporation immediately an amount of