AI Overview...
DoPT Orders on MACP Dated 15.07.2020: Key Insights and Guidelines
Government employees often navigate complex rules for career progression, especially under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme. If you're searching for DoPT orders on MACP dated 15.07.2020, this post breaks down relevant guidelines, court interpretations, and practical applications. While no exact order matches that date in available records, related DoPT Office Memorandums (OMs) and judicial decisions provide crucial context on MACP implementation. Note: This is general information based on public legal resources and not personalized legal advice. Consult a professional for your specific case.
Understanding the MACP Scheme Basics
The MACP scheme, introduced via DoPT OM dated 19.05.2009, offers financial upgradation to employees facing stagnation after 10, 20, and 30 years of service. It addresses promotion delays without equating to actual promotions. Key principles include:
- Financial upgradation on regular basis, not ad hoc positions in most cases. (Exemption - Grant of MACP - OM dated 19.05.2009 of GOI, DoPT - Financial upgradation - Ad hoc basis - Regular basis) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS N. K. ROHATGI - 2016 Supreme(Del) 2331
- Eligibility hinges on APAR benchmarks, typically 'Good' or 'Very Good' for post-2016 periods, with clarifications for earlier years. (MACP entitlement hinges on APAR benchmarks; post-2016 benchmark is Very Good for APARs) Smt. Usha Kumari vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8927
- Past service, including defence service for ex-servicemen, counts towards MACP. (The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant the applicant-private respondent the benefit of computation of his past service in the Army for ACP/MACP) Union of India VS Pardeep Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1046
DoPT OMs like those dated 10.02.2000, 09.09.2010, and 19.05.2009 frequently guide implementation, emphasizing uniformity. (DOPT OM dated 10.02.2000, DOPT OM dated 09.09.2010, DOPT OM dated 19.5.2009) Union of India VS Pardeep Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1046
Core Eligibility Criteria
- 10/20/30 years rule: Upgradation at these intervals if no promotion.
- Benchmark APARs: Only preceding years' reports count; not two years before due date. (The court held that APARs for the two years preceding the due date should not be considered for MACP eligibility, per the Office Memorandum dated 08th May, 2017.) Umakant Madhav Swami vs The Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3989
- No additional conditions: Administrations can't impose extras like computer exams. (The imposition of additional conditions for MACP by the Lakshadweep Administration is invalid as it contradicts the established MACP scheme.) S V Mohammed Hashim vs Ut Of Lakshadweep - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3793
Key DoPT OMs Referenced in Court Rulings
Courts often rely on DoPT clarifications near or around 2020 for MACP disputes:
- OM dated 08.05.2017: Specifies APAR consideration—exclude two preceding years. Led to directions for reconsideration in denial cases. (Office Memorandum dated 08th May, 2017 - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)) Umakant Madhav Swami vs The Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3989
- OMs 01.11.2010 & 04.10.2012: Clarify benchmarks for MACP, treating it as stagnation relief, not promotion. (OMs dated 01.11.2010 and 04.10.2012 clarifying benchmark application to MACP) Smt. Usha Kumari vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8927
- OM 19.11.2022: Recent guidance on APAR handling, but 2020-era cases reference similar 2010-2015 OMs for consistency. (MACP Scheme (2009) and DoPT guidance/OMs issued thereunder, including 19.11.2022 guidance) Smt. Usha Kumari vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8927
- DoPT letter 10.02.2000: Counts past Army service for ex-servicemen in civil roles. Upheld in multiple tribunals. (DOPT OM dated 10.02.2000) Union of India VS Pardeep Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1046
In one case, delayed adverse ACR communication invalidated MACP denial: The court ruled that timely communication of adverse remarks is essential for fair administrative action. V.J.XAVIER vs UNION OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11702
Judicial Interpretations on MACP Disputes
Tribunals and High Courts have clarified MACP applications, often remanding cases for fresh review per DoPT norms:
Ex-Servicemen Benefits
Ex-Army personnel get past service counted: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the similarly situated persons had been granted the benefit of computation of past Defence service. (Relied on Ashok Kumar case) Union of India VS Pardeep Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1046
APAR and Benchmarks
- Denials based on uncommunicated adverse remarks are arbitrary. Courts mandate grant if communication lapsed. V.J.XAVIER vs UNION OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11702
- 3rd MACP in GP 4600: Granted where equals received it, quashing discriminatory orders. (Applicants entitled to 3rd MACP in Grade Pay 4600, confirming equal treatment under the law.) Harbans Lal vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11631
No Recovery on Excess Payments
Courts protect retirees: No recovery shall be effected from the petitioner in case any excess payment had been made on account of grant of MACP. Tarani Kanta Sarma VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 555
Ad Hoc vs. Regular Service
MACP counts regular promotions; ad hoc may not always qualify, per OM 19.05.2009. Liberty given for review applications. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS N. K. ROHATGI - 2016 Supreme(Del) 2331
| Common MACP Issue | DoPT Guidance | Court Outcome |
|--------------------|---------------|----------------|
| Past Defence Service | OM 10.02.2000 | Eligible for counting Union of India VS Pardeep Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1046 |
| APAR Preceding Years | OM 08.05.2017 | Exclude 2 years prior Umakant Madhav Swami vs The Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3989 |
| Additional Conditions | MACP Scheme 2009 | Invalid S V Mohammed Hashim vs Ut Of Lakshadweep - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3793 |
| 3rd MACP Denial | Various OMs | Granted with arrears Harbans Lal vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11631 |
Practical Steps for Employees
- Check Eligibility: Verify 10/20/30 years, APARs, and past service.
- Gather Documents: Collect DoPT OMs (e.g., 10.02.2000, 19.05.2009) and ACRs.
- File Representation: Reference specific OMs; appeal to CAT if denied.
- Timely Action: Adverse remarks must be communicated promptly for validity.
In Ajmer Singh v. Govt. of NCT (2017), Selection Grade didn't count as promotion for 3rd MACP, allowing upgradation w.e.f. 01.09.2008. K. Sreedharan VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Secretary (Education) - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1977
Challenges and Recent Trends
DoPT often clarifies: DOPT has also advised that court cases including the case of R Chandrasekaran may be agitated/defended as per the MACP Scheme. Mohanlal Meena vs Central Board Of Excise & Custom - 2021 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 672
RTI requests for clarifications aren't 'information' under RTI Act—focus on existing records. I. V. RAMANA MURTHY vs Department of Posts - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6908
Post-2020, tribunals remand for compliance with OMs like 05.04.2021 on regularization. Goverdhan Lal vs Archaeological Survey Of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14303
Key Takeaways
- DoPT OMs around 2020 emphasize benchmark adherence, past service inclusion, and no extra hurdles.
- Courts favor employees in procedural lapses, directing MACP with arrears and no recovery.
- Generally, MACP provides relief against stagnation; verify via official DoPT site.
- For disputes, tribunals uphold uniformity per schemes like 19.05.2009.
Stay updated via DoPT portal. Situations vary—seek expert advice. This overview draws from precedents like Union of India VS Pardeep Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1046, Umakant Madhav Swami vs The Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3989, and others for comprehensive guidance.
Disclaimer: This post synthesizes public judgments and OMs. Laws evolve; professional consultation recommended.
Search Results for "DoPT MACP Orders Dated 15.07.2020 Explained"
2009 3 Supreme 487 • India - Supreme Court
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
The Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 15.2.2007 allowed the said appeal in part. ... The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 6.8.1993 allowed the claim in part. ... One Rajinder Prakash died on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 18.4.1988 involving a bus belonging ... The Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 15.2.2007 allowed the said ....
2012 7 Supreme 1 • India - Supreme Court
R.M.LODHA, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, ANIL R.DAVE
Quashing a proceeding becoming futile after compromise and compounding of offence - Two different things - By quashing a proceeding Court ... ... Finding of the Court: ... ... L.J. 1049; AIR 1999 SC 2554; (2008) 15 SCC 667; court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall ... We find that the impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier order#HL_E....
2017 8 Supreme 107 • India - Supreme Court
DIPAK MISRA, A. K. SIKRI, A. M. KHANWILKAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN
(a) Interpretation – Judgment – Judgment of a larger Bench is binding on Benches of smaller strength – Judgment of an earlier coordinate ... Bench is also binding on subsequent coordinate Bench – Disagreement with earlier judgment of a co-ordinate Bench – Impermissible ... ... Finding of the Court: ... ... appropriate orders for constituting a larger Bench. ... number of Judges, and in order that such decision b....
1990 0 Supreme(SC) 740 • India - Supreme Court
S.R.PANDIAN, K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY
this - Held, In the light of the above decisions of this Court, we feel that the said observations made in the impugned judgment ... appears to have considerably weighed with the learned Judges in taking the extreme step in quashing the First Information Report - Order ... the multi-dimensional causes of corruption and also about the positive and constructive remedial measures and steps to be taken for ... The subsequent Government Order dated 19-4-1988 is on the same....
1984 0 Supreme(SC) 181 • India - Supreme Court
A.V.VARADARAJAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
simple homicide rather than that of suicide as alleged by defence - High Court while confirming judgment of trial Court affirmed ... decision by this Court - Court rejected theory of suicide and found that was murdered by her husband by administering her a strong ... dose of potassium cyanide and relied on medical evidence as also that of Chemical Examiner to show that it was a case of pure and ... The High Court relied on, the fact that as the accus....
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6908 • India - Central Information Commission
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Appellant filed an RTI application seeking clarification on ACP and MACP orders ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that requests for clarification and opinion do not qualify as 'information' under Section ... orders, financial upgradations, and reasons for not receiving an annual increment. ... AAO promotion contrary to the MACP orders. ... (iii) After thorough examinati....
2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 1046 • India - Punjab and Haryana
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, AMIT RAWAL
) Scheme - DOPT OM dated 10.02.2000, DOPT OM dated 09.09.2010, DOPT OM dated 19.5.2009, order No.AN/XI/11051/MACP/2015/Vol.II dated ... 19.10.2015, order No.AM/III/1800/MACP dated 06.11.2015 - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant the applicant-private ... in the Army and the applicability of relevant government notifications and orders#HL_....
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11702 • India - High Court of Kerala
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
... ... Result: The order of the tribunal was set aside, and the third MACP was to be granted to the petitioner within one month. ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the tribunal's order lacked proper consideration of the requirement for timely communication ... ... ... Issues: The main issues included the legality of withholding the third MACP benefit based on delayed communication of adverse ... On perusal of the order of rejecti....
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3793 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
SUNIL THOMAS, Mrs. V. Rama Mathew, JJ
(A) MACP Scheme - Implementation Order dated 22.10.2019 - Circular dated 15.09.2022 - The applicants, Lecturers with DIET, challenged ... and directed the grant of MACP to the applicants as per the original scheme. ... the imposition of a computer skill examination as a prerequisite for MACP, arguing it contradicts the MACP scheme. ... reasoned orders. ... Annexure A-1is the OM dated#HL_....
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3989 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
M.G. Sewlikar, J
and 2019-2020 in the MACP evaluation, as per the guidelines in the OM. ... (A) Office Memorandum dated 08th May, 2017 - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) - Applicant entitled to MACP-I upon completion ... He applied for MACP-I but was denied based on unsatisfactory APARs from the last five years. ... does not meet as per time schedule of the DoPT order? ... order of #HL_....
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11631 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
SURESH KUMAR BATRA, J, RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, A
/law/2">Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:-“(i) That impugned orders dated 16.12.2020 & 20.07.2020 (Annexure A-1 & 2), denying the applicants, benefit of 3rd MACP in GP 4600, be quashed and set aside. ... The said decision was communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 21.12.2020. The representations have been rejected vide letters annexed as Annexure A-1 dated 16.12.2020 and ....
2022 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2678 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
The present OA had earlier been disposed of vide orders dated 12.02.2020 by this Tribunal. ... Therefore, in terms of the clarification dated 07.12.2018 issued by DoPT and in compliance of the Hon’ble CAT, Common order dated 15.02.2018 passed in OA No. 349/2017, the applicant is not eligible for the 2nd ACP granted in Pay Band Rs. 9300-34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs 4800/- w.e.f. ... On the contra, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that ....
2021 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 672 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
remanded back all the OAs including the present OA for fresh consideration as indicated in para 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said order dated 09.03.2020 (referred in para-1 above). ... Further, the DOPT clarified that the judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme, requires to be challenged in higher court. ... DOPT has also advised that court cases including the case of R Chandrasekaran may be agitated/defended as per the MACP Scheme vid....
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14303 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
Thereafter, with the approval of DoPT dated 29.07.2015 and concurrence of the Department of Expenditure dated 08.07.2015, conveyed vide departmental letter dated 21.08.2015, the applicants were regularized as Multi-Tasking Staff (Group „C‟) and appointed on regular basis vide office orders dated 10.09.2015 ... F.No.22024/4/2020-Estt.(D) dated 05.04.2021 issued by the DOPT, to the extent of decisio....
2021 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 671 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
Further, the DOPT clarified that the judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme, requires to be challenged in higher court. ... remanded back all the OAs including the present OA for fresh consideration as indicated in para 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said order dated 09.03.2020 (referred in para-1 above). ... DOPT has also advised that court cases including the case of R Chandrasekaran may be agitated/defended as per the MACP Scheme v....
Filter by Legal Phrase
