Ex Ls Qa Ii Kavinder Kumar (No. 133009-W) vs Union Of India And Ors.

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 14 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010220382026
+ W.P.(C) 6726/2026, CM APPL. 33022/2026
EX LS QA II KAVINDER KUMAR (NO. 133009-W) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akarshan Agarwal with Mr. Ved
Prakash, Advocates.


versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, SPC with Mr.
Vasuchit Anand, G.P.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India on behalf of the Petitioner laying a challenge to impugned order dated
30.03.2026 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi
(‘Tribunal’) in O.A. 1185/2019 as also for a direction to the Respondents to
nd
grant benefit of 2 MACP to the Petitioner in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/-.
2. To the extent necessary, the facts as pleaded are that Petitioner was
enrolled in Indian Navy on 31.07.2002 and was discharged from service in
Low Medical Category on 31.07.2017, after completion of 15 years and 1
day of service. In between, Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Acting LS
QA II on 08.01.2008 with effect from 05.08.2007 and served 9 years and 11
months in the rank/Grade Pay of LS II till expiry of his engagement.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 6726/2026 Page 1 of 7

3. Ministry of Defence, Government of India adopted the Modified
Assured Career Scheme for PBORs of Indian Navy at the level of
Seaman/Artificer Apprentice/Artificer (Direct Entry Diploma Holder)/Direct
Entry Acting Petty Officer, vide letter dated 19.05.2011. Petitioner avers
that due to his disability ‘Recurrent Shoulder Dislocation’, attributable to
service, he was placed in Low Medical Category and was not deputed for
PO ‘Q’ QA course on 03 occasions and this was erroneously taken as a
nd
ground to deny him the benefit of 2 MACP. Petitioner was nominated and
th
deputed for the 4 time for the course commencing from 29.12.2014 but was
not deputed again on a frivolous pretext that he did not have three years
residual service after completing the course and was not willing to serve
beyond the present engagement of 15 years, overlooking that being in Low
Medical Category, Petitioner would not have been re-engaged, even if he
had given his willingness. As a result of the illegal acts of the Respondents,
nd
Petitioner has been deprived of 2 MACP benefit in the Grade Pay of
Rs.2,800/- in the rank of Petty Officer, thereby causing immense financial
loss to him and the Tribunal has also dismissed the OA on a wrong
reasoning.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner suffered a
disability which was attributable to military service, while he was serving in
a field area and was consequently, downgraded to Low Medical Category.
Owing to the Low Medical Category, Petitioner was not permitted to join
the PO ‘Q’ QA course on 03 occasions, for which he cannot be faulted.
th
When Petitioner was nominated for the 4 time for the course commencing
from 29.12.2024, he was again not deputed and this time for the reason that
he did not have three years of residual service as he was about to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 6726/2026 Page 2 of 7

discharged on 31.07.2017. Petitioner cannot be blamed for disability
incurred as a result of military service and resultant non joining the course
and/or for his unwillingness to continue for which his disability may have
been an impediment and thus there is no justification in denying him
financial upgradation under MACP Scheme which was introduced as a
safety net in lieu of promotions.

5. It is further argued that Para 3 of MoD letter dated 19.05.2011 shows
nd
that Petitioner was eligible for grant of 2 MACP in the Grade Pay of
Rs.2,800/- and Para 8 thereof stipulates that requirement of fulfilling
medical/ACR/professional qualification linked to promotion will not debar
grant of MACP. Moreover, Para 9 of the letter shows that it is only when an
individual refuses promotion or promotion related courses, wherever
applicable, he will not be eligible for ACP/MACP benefits but in the present
case, Petitioner did not refuse to join the course but was prevented from
doing so owing to his medical category.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, defends the
order of the Tribunal and submits that Petitioner was nominated for PO ‘Q’
QA course 07 times but first time he was hospitalized and on the second
occasion he never reported. On next 04 occasions he was not deputed being
th
in Low Medical Category and when he was nominated for the 7 time vide
letter dated 16.10.2014, he did not have the requisite three years residual
service on the date of completion of the course in terms of Para 14(a) and (b)
of Navy Order (Str) 02/2007. Petitioner was therefore required to sign a
willingness certificate for further engagement, but he expressed his
unwillingness to continue and therefore, could not be deputed for the course
and Respondents cannot be blamed for this.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 6726/2026 Page 3 of 7

7. It is further urged that PO ‘Q’ QA course is one of the mandatory
criteria for promotion to the next rank as per Para 4 (B)(iii) Appendix I of NI
02/96 and consequently, a mandatory condition for financial upgradation
under the MACP scheme, adopted by the Ministry of Defence in respect of
PBORs of Indian Navy, a fact not controverted by the Petitioner even today.
It is also argued that the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Manju Arora and
Another, (2022) 2 SCC 151, wherein it was held that employees who refuse
offer of regular promotion are disentitled to financial upgradation benefits
envisaged under OM dated 09.08.1999 on the doctrine of approbate and
reprobate.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.
9. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 31.07.2002 and
discharged on expiry of engagement on 31.07.2017. During service,
Petitioner suffered a disability ‘Recurrent Shoulder Dislocation’ and was
placed in Low Medical Category S3A2 (A) (permanent) and remained in
this category till his discharge. The disability was considered attributable to
though not aggravated by military service as per the Release Medical Board
but since the disability was below 20%, Petitioner’s claim for disability
nd
pension was rejected. Petitioner was not granted 2 MACP benefit under the
scheme adopted by Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 19.05.2011 for
PBORs of Indian Navy enrolled at the level of Seaman and Artificer
nd
Apprentice etc. Petitioner approached the Tribunal for grant of 2 financial
upgradation, however, by impugned order dated 30.03.2026, the Original
Application was dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 6726/2026 Page 4 of 7

10. Reading of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has essentially
dismissed the Original Application on the ground that Petitioner did not
undergo the mandatory PO ‘Q’ QA course on four occasions owing to Low
Medical Category and for the course commencing from 29.12.2014, he was
not deputed owing to lack of residual service of three years on completion of
the course. It was observed that Petitioner expressed his unwillingness to
continue for further service and rendered a certificate of unwillingness dated
nd
11.11.2014. If the Petitioner was serious about receiving the 2 financial
upgradation, he ought to have expressed willingness for further engagement,
which would have enabled him to undergo the mandatory course, however,
he chose the alternate path of being discharged and sans the mandatory
course, he was not entitled to financial upgradation under the MACP scheme
and for this, Respondents cannot be blamed.
nd
11. Parties are ad idem that PO ‘Q’ QA course is mandatory for 2
MACP as per the MACP scheme adopted for PBORs of Indian Navy, as
brought forth above. Neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court,
Petitioner has pleaded that the course was not mandatory and therefore, the
argument that professional qualifications required for promotion are not
required for MACP is misplaced and an afterthought. In the impugned order,
Tribunal has referred to a tabular chart reflecting the number of occasions on
which Petitioner could have been deputed for the course and reasons for not
being deputed. The data in the table, which is not refuted by the Petitioner,
reflects that on 4 out of 7 occasions, Petitioner was not deputed owing to
Low Medical Category, for which though the Petitioner cannot be faulted
but even the Respondents cannot be. On the first occasion, Petitioner was
hospitalized and on the second, he never reported. When the Petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 6726/2026 Page 5 of 7

th
deputed for the 7 time, he did not have the three years residual service on
the date of completion of the course, which is mandatory. He was
accordingly asked to give his willingness for further engagement but the
record shows that he expressed his unwillingness for further engagement.
Tribunal has extracted the certificate of unwillingness dated 11.11.2014 in
paragraph 5 of the impugned order, which demonstrates that Petitioner had
of his own free will expressed his unwillingness for further service. The
certificate also shows that while signing the same, Petitioner was aware that
the consequences of the declaration will be that any subsequent application
for re-engagement will not be entertained. Therefore, not being detailed for
the PO ‘Q’ QA course commencing from 29.12.2014 cannot be attributed to
the Respondents. Once the Petitioner did not undergo the mandatory course,
nd
he was rightly held not entitled to 2 financial upgradation under the MACP
scheme and no legal infirmity can be found with the impugned order of the
Tribunal on this aspect.
12. Though as an additional ground, learned Tribunal is also right in
observing that if employees consciously forego regular promotions, they
cannot lay a claim for financial upgradation on the touchstone of the
doctrine of approbate and reprobate, placing reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Manju Arora (supra). Tribunal has rightly observed that
Petitioner cannot be allowed to simultaneously contend that he did not
refuse to attend the mandatory PO ‘Q’ QA course but his decision to express
unwillingness for further retention in service cannot be faulted, as this would
amount to reprobating and approbating.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned order
dated 30.03.2026 in O.A. 1185/2019, warranting interference by this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 6726/2026 Page 6 of 7

and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending
application.


JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026 /bh

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 6726/2026 Page 7 of 7