Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
MACP cases are not exclusively to be filed in CAT; they may involve proceedings before CAT, High Courts, or Supreme Court depending on the context. Several cases indicate that MACP benefits are adjudicated by CAT or High Courts, but the filing is not restricted solely to CAT. For instance, in ["Chief Executive Officer VS S. Lalitha - Supreme Court"], the CAT allowed a second application and directed the Railway to permit pension options, but the case was also challenged through writ petitions in High Courts.
The main point is that MACP-related disputes often originate in CAT but can also involve High Courts and Supreme Court proceedings. For example, ["Someswar Goswami vs Union of India service through General Manager, South Eastern Railway - Central Administrative Tribunal"] and ["Rakesh Prakash Srivastava vs Post Up Circle - Central Administrative Tribunal"] show that orders passed by CAT can be challenged in High Courts or Supreme Court, and the courts have clarified that MACP benefits are subject to judicial review across multiple forums.
Several judgments emphasize that the applicability and eligibility for MACP benefits depend on the facts of each case, adherence to scheme criteria, and whether proper procedures were followed. For example, ["J. P. Mandal Son of Late D. P. Mandal VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 865"] notes that the CAT erred in granting third MACP benefits without considering material facts, indicating that procedural correctness in CAT is crucial but not exclusive.
Analysis and Conclusion: The overarching insight is that while CAT is a primary forum for adjudicating MACP benefit disputes, it is not the only forum. Cases can and do reach High Courts and Supreme Court, especially when constitutional or scheme interpretation issues arise. Therefore, the assertion that MACP case must be filed in CAT is not entirely accurate; MACP disputes can be filed or challenged in various courts, including High Courts, depending on the legal question and procedural context. The judiciary has clarified that MACP benefits are subject to the scheme's criteria and procedural correctness, which can be reviewed in multiple forums ["J. P. Mandal Son of Late D. P. Mandal VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 865"] ["Chief Executive Officer VS S. Lalitha - Supreme Court"].
Government employees in India often seek financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme to address career stagnation. But a common question arises: MACP case must be filed in CAT? The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) plays a pivotal role in adjudicating such disputes. This blog post breaks down the procedural requirements, timelines, and judicial insights to help you navigate this process effectively.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The MACP scheme provides assured career progression through financial upgradations after 10, 20, and 30 years of service, regardless of promotions, subject to eligibility criteria like performance benchmarks and service norms. CAT, established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has exclusive jurisdiction over service matters for central government employees, including MACP claims.
Courts have consistently held that MACP-related disputes fall under CAT's purview, emphasizing strict procedural compliance. Non-adherence can lead to dismissal, making it crucial to file correctly and timely. State of Karnataka VS S. M. Kotrayya - 1996 7 Supreme 512
Yes, typically, MACP cases must be filed before CAT as the primary forum. Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act mandates approaching CAT first for original applications (OAs) challenging administrative orders on promotions, upgradations, or denials under MACP.
For instance, applications filed beyond the limitation period without explanation are rejected. In one case, an application filed in August 1989 was deemed time-barred, and the Tribunal's condonation was overturned for lack of justification. State of Karnataka VS S. M. Kotrayya - 1996 7 Supreme 512
Higher courts reinforce this: once CAT decides, remedies lie in appeals to High Courts or the Supreme Court, not re-litigation. Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty - 1998 4 Supreme 201
Time is critical. Applications must be filed within the prescribed period under CAT Rules—usually one year from the impugned order.
In a detailed analysis, the court noted: Application filed in August 1989 before Tribunal was found to be beyond the limitation period, and the Tribunal was unjustified in condoning the delay without proper explanation. State of Karnataka VS S. M. Kotrayya - 1996 7 Supreme 512
Beyond timelines:- Submit affidavits mandatorily; oral compliance suffices not. Ashok Lanka VS Rishi Dixit - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 829- Meet eligibility: e.g., 10 years in same grade pay, no benchmark shortfalls. J. P. Mandal Son of Late D. P. Mandal VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 865
Courts stress: The statutory requirements shall be complied with and substantial compliance is necessary if the requirements are directory, but strict compliance is mandatory where prescribed by law. Ashok Lanka VS Rishi Dixit - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 829
CAT may condone delays under Section 21 of the Act, but sparingly. The applicant bears the onus of satisfactory explanation. In review contexts, powers are narrower—limited to Section 22(3)(f) read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Late reviews post-SLP dismissal are barred. Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty - 1998 4 Supreme 201
The judgment clarifies: The Tribunal had dismissed these applications in view of having allowed the review petitions and set aside its earlier order... these review applications are not within the principles laid down in Order 47 Rule 1 and were filed after the statutory period. Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty - 1998 4 Supreme 201
MACP isn't automatic. Key requirements:- Fulfill promotional norms, including educational qualifications and regular service. Ad hoc service doesn't count. UNION OF INDIA vs P.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 236- Performance benchmarks: Adverse ACRs (e.g., 'average') may bar upgradation unless clarified otherwise. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE TRIVANDRUM vs K MADHUSOODHANAN - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4153
One ruling states: An employee must fulfill all promotional norms, including educational qualifications, to qualify for financial upgradations under the ACP and MACP Schemes. UNION OF INDIA vs P.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 236
The petitioner in a case was denied first and second MACP for failing criteria. J. P. Mandal Son of Late D. P. Mandal VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 865
Administrative memos like OM dated 19.05.2009 guide but don't override statutes. Commissioners can't waive eligibility via circulars. Ashok Lanka VS Rishi Dixit - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 829GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS N. K. ROHATGI - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2331
Petitioners with common interests (e.g., similar service-based claims) can file jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) CAT Rules. 'May' is read as mandatory for access to justice. C SIVADASAN vs CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17603
Article 14 doesn't grant benefits just because others received them erroneously. Entitlement must be legal. Rajender Prasad Sharma VS Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation And Ors - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2324
MACP (post-2008) doesn't retroactively apply from ACP dates (2004). Schemes have distinct criteria; courts avoid rewriting executive policies. VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS NARENDER KUMAR - 2022 3 Supreme 626
In DDA cases, MACP operates prospectively; ACP benefits aren't vested rights. VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS NARENDER KUMAR - 2022 3 Supreme 626
Drivers may get concurrent time-bound and MACP benefits per government orders. Sri Dipen Kumar Hazarika And Ors vs Defence - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9830 Juniors' benefits don't automatically extend. Kanhu Charan Das vs D/o Post - 2019 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2564
Reviews are narrow: can't re-agitate decided issues or introduce new grounds. Post-SLP rejection, no Tribunal review. Appeal to High Court under Article 226/227. Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty - 1998 4 Supreme 201
Once final, pursue statutory appeals; no backdoor reviews. Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty - 1998 4 Supreme 201
To maximize chances:- File Timely: Within limitation; prepare delay explanations if needed.- Document Thoroughly: Affidavits, service records, memos.- Verify Eligibility: Check benchmarks, qualifications. UNION OF INDIA vs P.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 236- Joint Filings: For common grievances. C SIVADASAN vs CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17603- Avoid Reviews Lightly: Opt for appeals.- Reference Guidelines: Use OMs interpretatively, not overridingly. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS N. K. ROHATGI - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2331
MACP cases generally must originate in CAT with strict timelines and procedures. Delays without cause, procedural lapses, or eligibility shortfalls doom claims. Judicial precedents like State of Karnataka VS S. M. Kotrayya - 1996 7 Supreme 512J. P. Mandal Son of Late D. P. Mandal VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 865Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty - 1998 4 Supreme 201 underscore compliance.
Integrating related rulings, success hinges on norms fulfillment—no shortcuts via parity or memos. Stay proactive, document meticulously, and seek professional guidance.
For government servants, understanding these rules prevents pitfalls. Share your experiences below!
References:- State of Karnataka VS S. M. Kotrayya - 1996 7 Supreme 512 Limitation and condonation.- Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty - 1998 4 Supreme 201 Reviews.- J. P. Mandal Son of Late D. P. Mandal VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 865 Eligibility.- GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS N. K. ROHATGI - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2331 Memos.- Ashok Lanka VS Rishi Dixit - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 829 Compliance.- Additional: UNION OF INDIA vs P.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 236, C SIVADASAN vs CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17603, VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS NARENDER KUMAR - 2022 3 Supreme 626, etc.
#MACPScheme, #CATIndia, #ServiceLaw
Mandal has not made out a case so as to extend first and second MACP benefit as claimed by him. Similarly, grant of third MACP by the CAT is not in accordance with the criteria and the CAT has not taken note of the fact that Petitioner-J.P. ... The aforesaid material information has not been taken note of by the CAT in so far as extending third MACP. To that extent the CAT has committed error, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to third #HL_ST....
The claim of the retiree-respondent was rejected by the Chairman, Railway Board whereupon a second original application was filed before the CAT. ... It is, therefore, apparent that financial upgradations granted under the MACP Scheme despite grant of non-functional upgradation to the respondents- employees upon completion of two or four years of service, as the case may be, was not found by this Court to be in accord with the MACP scheme and while ... CAT allowed this second applicati....
No. 1038/CH/2010 in the case of Raj Pal v. Union of India & ors. wherein the Chandigarh Bench vide its order dated 31.05.2011 had allowed the O.A. filed by the applicant and granted MACP benefits in the hierarchy of the promotional post. ... On merits, it has been held that the financial upgradation envisaged as per the MACP Scheme is not a case of hostile discrimination. ... In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Union of India are partly allowed and impugned ju....
As the applicant is changing his arguments in the OA, in the rejoinder and in the written argument and there is no consistency and MACP clarity on that as in the next paragraph of the written argument he want to say that, “the case of the applicant is similar to CAT Allahabad order dated 25.11.2023 in ... Thus, relying upon the order passed by the CAT, Ahmadabad Bench wherein the Tribunal relied upon the case of D. Shivakumar (supra), which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme High Court, the O.A. is li....
Dismissal of OA No.65/2015 filed by Shri Mascarenhas W.G., has no relevancy for denying the second and third MACP benefits claimed by the applicants. ... The issue herein is squarely covered by Shri Mascarenhas W.G.’s case supra. ... Some of the applicants herein had filed OA No.146/2013 to 160/2013 before this Tribunal challenging denial of grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4800 under MACP Scheme on completion of 30 years of service ... In the instant case, the applicant’s Grade Pay ....
In this case, we specifically note that the ACP Scheme itself stipulates that the employee must fulfil normal promotional norms. ... Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 740/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN/APPLICANT IN THE OA BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN/RESPONDENT DATED p class="para" left_margin="72.024" pos_bottom="609.9159999999999" pos_top ... The applicant also had a case that he had completed ....
non for a suit to be filed. ... (CAT).1/2017 2 of 2016. In fact, R.A.No.60 of 2016 was filed to review and recall the order in O.A.No.180/00831/2016 and to post it for admission ex debito justitiae. R.A.No.61 of 2016 was filed to review and recall order dated 4.10.2016 in M.A.No.1087/2016 and to allow it. ... But that is not the decisive factor while considering the question whether the application filed O.P.(CAT).1/2017 12 under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Rules could be allowed or not. .......
(CAT)No.149/2014 22 15.1. In Brij Mohan's case (supra) the Apex Court held further that, whenever an adverse entry is awarded to a Government servant it must be communicated to him. ... Per contra, the case of the petitioners herein in their reply statement filed in the O.A. was that, the applicant was granted 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme as per Annexure A6 memo dated 7.7.2010, without considering the below benchmark grading in his APAR for the year 2007-08, as there....
However, we find that in the case of Drivers, the Government themselves have allowed the concurrent application of both the time bound scheme and the MACP Scheme. Moreover, it would be clear from the order of the CAT Mumbai Bench that the Department of Posts have adopted the MACP Scheme. ... Petition No. 153/2020 in OA No. 3204/2011 filed by Shri Madhu Sudan, Civilian Board Operator (CSBO) and 35 others before Hon’ble CAT (PB), New Delhi. ... It is further noted that Clause 13 of the #....
The respondents have filed their Counter opposing the submissions in the OA that the applicant claims the benefit of 3rd MACP at par with his juniors. ... The applicant filed a representation dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure-A/ 8 followed by a reminder at Annexure-A/ 9. It is claimed by the applicant that his case is covered by the order dated 22.5.2012 of Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal. ... The dispute in that case was whether the applicant will be eligible for 2nd MACP benefit after 20 year....
6. Before CAT, the employee- respondents contended that the ACP Scheme was more beneficial to them, in comparison with benefits under the MACP Scheme.
8. Ms. Shaikh, learned advocate for the appellants submits that MACP was filed against the another driver and Insurance Company of the Truck which was involved in the accident. She would further submits that the respondent No.1 being the employer had not paid any compensation to the appellants for the death of their son during the course of employment. It is her submission that in the said MACP, the respondents were not parties.
In application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, there is no concept of negative equality and merely because other similarly placed persons as the petitioner have been granted something more than they are entitled to in law, would not entitle the petitioner also thereto, till the petitioner makes out an entitlement thereto in law. 5. Once the counsel for the petitioner also admits that the MACP granted to the petitioner has been correctly computed, no error can be found in the reasoning given by CAT, of denying similar treatment to the petitioner as his batchmates in SDMC....
He filed a further O.A. No. 168/1998 in the CAT for increments. 9. The Petitioner in the meanwhile went before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") Lucknow Bench for the execution of the decree of the PA in O.A. No. 103/1993.
The appellant received extensive injuries due to the said accident and during the treatment, his left leg was amputated and he suffered multiple fractures in his pelvic area. He filed MACP No. 232/07 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.20,75,000/-.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
