Central Excise & Customs vs MADHAV BEHARI MATHUR

1
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR


ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 337/2017
& ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 338/2017
with
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 207/2025
& MISC. APPLICATION NO. 340/2025

Order Reserved on: 28.09.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 23.10.2026

CORAM
HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

OA No. 337/2017
Shashi Prakash Sharma s/o Late Shri Ramgopal Sharma aged
about 64 years, resident of B-21, Gangapath, Suraj Nagar West,
Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) earlier retired as Deputy Commissioner.
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant.

VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Central Board of Excise and Customs through its Chairman,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, NCR
Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Shri Kinshuk Jain, counsel for the respondents.

OA No. 338/2017
Madhav Behari Mathur s/o Late Shri J.P. Mathur aged about 64
years, resident of 67/74, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) earlier
retired as Deputy Commissioner.
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant.

VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Central Board of Excise and Customs through its Chairman,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, NCR
Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
Shri Kinshuk Jain, counsel for the respondents.

2
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

Two Original Applications No.337/2017 and No.338/2017 had
been filed by Applicants who had retired as Deputy Commissioner
(D.C.) of Indian Revenue Service (I.R.S.), Customs & Central
Excise (C&CE) – against the impugned order dated 28.02.2017,
rd
vide which the benefit of 3 financial upgradation earlier allowed
to them vide Order dated 27.05.2013 had been withdrawn ; and
further against rejection of their related representations by the
Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur (Respondent No.3).

2. Since both the Applicants were similarly placed on facts and
had agitated the same action by the Respondents in respect of
the very same matter on similar grounds, the afore-mentioned
O.A.s were taken up together with the consent of the contesting
parties – the Applicants and the Respondents ; and are disposed
of vide this common order, which though passed in O.A.
No.337/2017, would apply ipso facto to O.A. No.338/2017 also.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record in O.A.
No.337/2017, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as
follows briefly. The Applicant was initially appointed on
04.10.1978 as Inspector, Central Excise (CE), earlier a Group-C
non-gazetted post (later re-classified to be a Group-B non-
gazetted post), under the Respondent No.3. He was subsequently
promoted as Superintendent (CE), a Group-B gazetted post,
under Respondent No.3, w.e.f. 29.07.1991. On completion of 24
years of regular service, the Applicant had been allowed the
benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under the Assured Career
Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme, while he had continued as
Superintendent (CE). Later on 08.01.2007, he got the substantive
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (A.C.),

3
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


I.R.S.(C&CE) into an organized Group-A service – which he joined
on 23.01.2007. Eventually on 31.01.2012, he was promoted to
the post of D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) in the same organized Group-A
service – which he joined on 06.02.2012 ; and had retired as such
on superannuation on 31.05.2013.

Meanwhile, the Department of Personnel & Training (D.oP.&T.) of
the Government of India had notified the Modified Assured Career
Progression (M.A.C.P.) Scheme on 19.05.2009 to be applicable
w.e.f. 01.09.2008 – as per which three financial upgradations
were to be considered duly at 10,20 and 30 years of continuous
regular service respectively. However, vide the said O.M. dated
19.05.2009, financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme
was not admissible to members of organized Group-A services.
Nonetheless, vide the clarification issued through the O.M. dated
13.06.2012 of the D.oP.&T., it had been decided to allow grant of
financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme w.e.f. from the due
date to those officers who were inducted to organized Group ‘A’
service when they were nearing retirement, subject to the
condition that such an evaluation will be made only at the time of
retirement ; and further that in case such officers had already
attained three financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme,
they shall not be entitled for non-functional upgradation (N.F.U.)
to the same grade from a later date. Corresponding directions had
been issued to all Cadre Controlling Authorities (C.C.A.s) under
the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.), Department
of Revenue vide their communication dated 12.10.2012.

4. The Applicant’s case for a 3rd financial upgradation was
considered by the Office of the Respondent No.3, purportedly in
accordance with D.oP.&T. Memos dated 19.05.2009 and dated
13.06.2012 and the clarification dated 12.10.2012 by the
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue ; and the Applicant inter alia

4
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


rd
had been granted 3 financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008
(i.e., upon completion of 30 years of regular continuous service)
vide the Order dated 27.05.2013. Subsequently though, the
C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue had issued the letter dated
07.12.2016 addressed to Respondent No.3 regarding grant of
financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme to Group-A officers
who had been inducted into I.R.S.(C&CE) at later stage. It was
mentioned thereby that upon examining the matter regarding
applicability of C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue letter dated
12.10.2012 to the officers who were promoted to the post of
D.C., it was observed that those officers had already got three
promotions in their service period from the entry grade of
Inspector (CE) ; and therefore, the said letter dated 12.10.2012
was not applicable in their case and they were not eligible for the
rd
benefit of 3 financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme.

The Respondent No.3 had also been advised specifically in respect
of certain officers, the Applicant inter alia, that they had already
got three promotions during the service from the entry grade of
Inspector (CE). Hence, the D.oP.&T. O.M. dated 13.06.2012 and
the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue letter dated 12.10.2012
were deemed as not applicable in their cases and they were not
eligible for any financial benefit under the M.A.C.P. Scheme. It
had further been advised to take appropriate action for recovery
of wrongful/excess payment made to such officers who had
already retired. In pursuance thereof the Respondent No.3 had
issued the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 to withdraw the
rd
benefit of 3 financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme
granted to the present Applicant inter alia w.e.f. the date of its
grant (i.e. 04.10.2008) itself. The Applicant had thereafter
submitted representations dated 07.03.2017 and dated
21.03.2017 ; which came to be disposed of vide the impugned
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT

5
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


communication dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of the Respondent
No.3, without being acceded to.

5. Aggrieved of the aforesaid, the Applicant had filed the
present O.A. to seek the substantive reliefs, inter alia – that the
impugned communication dated 07.12.2016 issued by the
C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue for denying the benefit of the
rd
3 financial upgradation to him, the impugned Order dated
28.02.2017 issued by the Respondent No.3 in pursuance thereof
and the Letter dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of Respondent No.3
upon his representations, be all quashed and set aside ; and that
the Respondents be also directed to allow him the benefit of a 3rd
financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 as per the earlier Order
dated 27.05.2013 and to make payment of arrears accordingly.

6. The Applicant had raised several grounds in support of his
case, the substantive grounds in support of their case being inter
alia that while the third promotion to DC I.R.S.(C&CE) was
allowed to him vide Order dated 31.01.2012 (joined on
06.02.2012), he had already completed 30 years of regular
continuous service on 04.10.2008 itself. Hence, the Applicant had
contended that since to get the benefit of a 3rd financial
upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme, the requirement was that
the concerned officer had not been allowed three financial
upgradations/promotions on the due date ; and purportedly, as
the Applicant had completed 30 years of continuous regular
service on 04.10.2008 and till then, admittedly he was allowed
only two financial upgradations/promotions – a 3rd financial
upgradation became due for him w.e.f. 04.10.2008. Hence, the
promotion as D.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE) accorded later than
04.10.20028 w.e.f. 31.01/06.02.2012 ought to be treated as
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
inconsequential insofar as the grant of a 3rd financial upgradation
LAL
KUMAWAT
to the Applicant under M.A.C.P. Scheme was concerned ; and the

6
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


benefit so allowed w.e.f. 04.10.2008 vide Order dated 27.05.2013
of the Respondent No.3 was rightly given to him.

Additionally, the technical grounds raised were that the impugned
Order dated 28.02.2017 had adverse civil consequences for him ;
hence, before passing the said impugned Order for withdrawing
the benefit of a 3rd financial upgradation earlier allowed w.e.f.
04.10.2008, the Respondents were required to give an
opportunity of hearing to the Applicant as per principles of natural
justice. Further, it was also contended that while he had been
allowed the 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 based on
the recommendations of a duly constituted screening committee,
the withdrawal of the same had been done without convening a
review meeting of the said screening committee.

7. Vide their reply, the Respondents had admitted only the
matters of fact on record, inter alia – that the Applicant was
initially appointed on 04.10.1978 as Inspector (CE) and was later
promoted as Superintendent (CE), w.e.f. 29.07.1991 ; that on
completion of 24 years of regular service, he had been allowed
the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under the A.C.P. Scheme,
while he had continued substantively as Superintendent (CE) ;
that later on 08.01.2007, he got the substantive promotion to the
post of A.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE) into an organized Group-A service,
which he joined on 23.01.2007 ; and that eventually on
31.01.2012, he was promoted as D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) in the same
organized Group-A service – which he joined on 06.02.2012 ; and
had retired as such on superannuation on 31.05.2013.

It had also been admitted inter alia – that as per the M.A.C.P.
Scheme notified on 19.05.2009 to be applicable w.e.f.
01.09.2008, three financial upgradations were to be considered
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
duly at 10,20 and 30 years of continuous regular service
LAL
KUMAWAT
respectively ; that however, financial upgradation under the said

7
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


M.A.C.P. Scheme were not admissible to members of organized
Group-A services ; that nonetheless, vide the clarification issued
through the O.M. dated 13.06.2012 of the D.oP.&T., it had been
decided to allow financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme
w.e.f. from the due date to those officers who were inducted to
organized Group -A service when they were nearing retirement,
subject to the condition that such an evaluation will be made only
at the time of retirement ; and further that in case such officers
had already attained three financial upgradations under M.A.C.P.
Scheme, they shall not be entitled for non-functional upgradation
(N.F.U.) to the same grade from a later date.

It had further been admitted inter alia – that the Applicant’s case
for a 3rd financial upgradation was considered by the Office of the
Respondent No.3, purportedly in accordance with the
communication dated 12.10.2012 by the C.B.E.C., Department of
Revenue issued in follow-up to the D.oP.&T. Memo dated
rd
13.06.2012 ; that the Applicant inter alia had been granted 3
financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 (i.e. upon completion of
30 years of regular continuous service) vide the Order dated
27.05.2013 ; that subsequently however, vide Letter dated
07.12.2016 of C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue, it was conveyed
that the Board’s earlier letter dated 12.10.2012 was not
applicable in case of those officers who had already got three
promotions in their service period from the entry grade of
rd
Inspector (CE) and they were not eligible for the benefit of 3
financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme ; and that in
pursuance thereof, the Respondent No.3 had issued the impugned
rd
order dated 28.02.2017 to withdraw the benefit of 3 financial
upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme granted to the Applicant
inter alia w.e.f. the date of grant (i.e. 04.10.2008) itself. His
related representations dated 07.03.2017 and 21.03.2017 came
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT

8
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


to be disposed of vide the impugned Letter dated 09.05.2017 of
the Office of Respondent No.3.

8. Per contra, Respondents had contested the other
contentions and averments on part of the Applicant vide the
present O.A. In particular, it had been contended that the benefit
of financial upgradation could only be admissible/granted as per
the provisions of the extant A.C.P. or M.A.C.P. Schemes. In
particular, in respect of the Applicant’s essential claim to be
rd
allowed a 3 financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme since
the date of completion of 30 years of overall continuous regular
service, the Respondents had contended that the O.M. dated
19.05.2009, for M.A.C.P. Scheme itself had clearly stated at Para-
3 thereof that the said Scheme shall be applicable to all regularly
appointed Group-(A/B/C) Central Government civilian employees,
except officers of Organised Group-A services. On being promoted
and appointed as A.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE), the Applicant became an
officer of an organized Group-A service w.e.f. 23.01.2007, thus he
was per se not covered for financial upgradation vide the M.A.C.P.
Scheme introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2008.

9. Nonetheless, it was further submitted that the D.oP.&T. had
issued the O.M. dated 13.06.2012 regarding grant of benefits of
M.A.C.P. Scheme to officers who were later inducted into
Organized Group-A Services, which upon reference was shown to
clarify that –

“ In terms of clarification given on point of doubt no.2 of Annexure of this
Department's O.M. dated 09.09.2010, no benefits under the M.A.C.P.S
would be applicable to Group A officers of Organised Group A Services, as
the officer under organized Group 'A' Services have already been allowed
parity of two years on non-functional basis with the officers of the Indian
Administrative Service (IAS). In this regard, this Department is in receipt
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT of a number of references from various Departments in respect of officers
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT

9
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


who are deprived of the benefits of M.A.C.P.S due to their induction into
the organised Group A Services at a later stage of their service.

2. The issue has been considered by this Department in consultation with
Department of Expenditure. It has been decided to allow grant of financial
up-gradations under M.A.C.P.S with effect from the due date to those
officers who are inducted to the Organized Group 'A' Services when they
are nearing retirement subject to the condition that only at the time of
retirement an evaluation of up-gradations/promotions earned by the
officer would be made. In case such officers have already attained three
financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme, they shall not be entitled
for N.F.U. to the same grade from a later date.”
The Respondents had averred that at first in pursuance of the said
O.M. dated 13.06.2012 of D.oP.&T. and the C.B.E.C., Department
of Revenue Letter dated 12.10.2012 issued in follow-up, the
Office of Respondent No.3 had convened a Screening Committee
meeting on 21.05.2013, which had considered the cases of
Group-A officers who had not earned three financial
upgradations/promotions till completion of 30 years of continuous
regular service. As per its recommendations, such officers
rd
including the Applicant also, were allowed 3 financial
upgradation vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of Respondent No.3.

However, since the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue had
received references from its different Commissionerates seeking
clarification regarding applicability of its Letter dated 12.10.2012
in respect of officers who were already promoted as D.C. in
I.R.S.(C&CE) prior to their retirement on superannuation – it had
consulted the D.oP.&T. as the O.M. dated 19.05.2009 for M.A.C.P.
Scheme had provided inter alia that any interpretation or
clarification of doubt as to the scope and meaning of the
provisions of the M.A.C.P. Scheme shall be given by the
D.oP.&T.(Estt.-D). After such due consultation with D.oP.&T., it
had been clarified by C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue that since
those officers who were working as D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) had
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
already got three promotions in their service period from entry

10
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


grade of Inspector, therefore the C.B.E.C., Department of
Revenue Letter dated 12.10.2012 was not applicable in their
cases and they were not eligible for any benefit under M.A.C.P.
Scheme. It had also been advised thereby to take appropriate
corrective action, including that for recovery of wrongful/excess
payment made to such officers who had already retired.
Accordingly in rectification, the benefit of 3rd financial
upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme, as earlier allowed wrongly to
such officers (including the present Applicant) was rightly
withdrawn vide Order dated 28.02.2017 of Respondent No.3.

10. The Respondents had also sought to rely upon the authority
of the Judgments/Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to support
the correctness of the actions taken, inter alia – that as per the
Judgment/Order dated 19.11.1997 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
C.A No.5336 of 1995 [1998 SCC (L&S) 1191] in the case of
Kishorilal Charmakar & Anr. Vs. District Education Officer &
Anr. , it had been held that an employee on whom an undeserved
benefit has been conferred on account of mistake on the part of
the Government is not entitled to retain it ; also that as per the
Judgment/Order dated 20.02.1997 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the C.A. No.27 of 1985 [1997 SCC (L&S) 801] in the case of
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mann , it had been
held that a wrong decision by the Government does not give a
right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity and equality, as
two wrongs can never make a right ; further that as per the
Judgment/Order dated 01.04.2008 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
CA No.2338 of 2008 [2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 1047 ] in the case of
Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Kar &
Ors. , it had been held that bonafide mistake committed in
payment does not confer any right on any party and it can be
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
corrected ; further also that as per the Judgment/Order dated
LAL
KUMAWAT
19.12.2002 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos.4679-80 and

11
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


10983 of 1996 [2003 SCC (L&S) 191] in the case of P.U. Joshi &
Ors. Vs. Accountant-General, Ahmedabad & Ors. , it had been
held that questions relating to constitution, pattern, nomenclature
of posts, cadres, categories, their creations/abolition, prescription
of qualifications and other conditions of service pertain to the field
of policy is within exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State
and it is not for the Tribunals to direct the Government to have a
particular method of recruitment, etc., by substituting its views
for that of the State ; and moreover that as per the
Judgment/Order dated 28.04.2004 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
CA No.2785 of 2004 [2005 SCC (L&S) 785] in the case of Vice-
Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs.
Girdharilal Yadav , it had been held that the principles of natural
justice cannot be put in a straitjacket and should not be stretched
too far.

In the light of the same, it had been mentioned pertinently inter
alia – that the Applicant and other similarly situated D.C.s were
erroneously granted the 3rd financial upgradation under the
M.A.C.P. Scheme to the grade pay of Rs.6600 in PB-3 w.e.f.
04.10.2008 ; that the said mistake was rectified by the
Department vide impugned Order dated 28.02.2017 of
Respondent No.3 ; and that the follow-up Orders in compliance
thereof had also been issued by Central Excise Commissionerate,
Jaipur on 21.04.2017 for revision of pension of the Applicant. It
was also submitted that similar orders had also been issued for
revision of pension for other similarly situated D.C.s.

11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties on
record, inter alia the M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines, the O.M.s dated
13.05.2009 and 13.06.2012 of the D.oP.&T., the relevant Letters
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
issued by the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue as well as the
LAL
KUMAWAT
authority of Judgments/Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited.

12
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


The arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties were also
heard.

12. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the settled
position in law – that statutory rules should prevail and must be
strictly adhered to and the principles of estoppel and
acquiescence cannot apply over and above the eligibility condition
having statutory force laid down by statutory rules ; that there
can be no estoppel against law and if the law requires something
to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that
manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have
no existence in the eye of the law. Something that is illegal
cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third
person.

It was also noted that the framing of the guidelines for the grant
of benefit of financial upgradation would be in the domain of the
concerned competent administrative authorities – and accordingly
the same had been framed and issued vide the D.oP.&T. O.M.
dated 19.05.2009 to be effective from 01.09.2008. The said
policy guidelines would be binding upon all Central Government
Departments ; and M.A.C.P. Scheme benefits must be granted
strictly in accordance with those and not otherwise.

It is deemed apposite to fortify the aforesaid by an apposite
reference to the recent Judgment/Order dated 23.07.2026 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Harbans Lal Verma [2026 INSC 739], whereby it had been
clarified inter alia that –

“48. … … The principles governing the effect of executive interpretations
of government service schemes are well established. A government
service scheme, such as the MACPS, is an executive instrument. Its
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
interpretation by the administering authority particularly where that
LAL
KUMAWAT
interpretation follows consultation with the nodal department (DoPT in

13
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


case of the MACPS) is entitled to due consideration. This Court in M.V.
Mohanan Nair (supra), in Paragraph 30, held in explicit terms that
“Departmental clarifications issued by DoPT are integral to the Scheme
and binding on all authorities.” This is not a statement of mere
administrative courtesy. It reflects the well-established principle that an
executive scheme created by the Government for its own employees is to
be administered as the Government intends, and that executive
interpretations of such schemes, when issued by the competent authority
in consultation with the nodal department, are binding on service
tribunals, subordinate courts, and all administrative authorities.”
… …
The ratio of the conclusions recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court
thereby was inter alia that DoPT-consulted binding executive
clarifications of MACS are in conformity with, and not in
derogation of, the parent Scheme ; and must be given full effect.

13. Thus, the substantive issue presently before us was whether
the Applicant was eligible for a 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f.
04.10.2008 upon completion of 30 years of continuous regular
service, despite being promoted as A.C. in Group-A of
I.R.S.(C&CE) on 08.01.2007 (joined on 23.01.2007) as well as
being promoted as D.C. also in Group-A of I.R.S.(C&CE) on
31.01.2012 (joined on 06.02.2012). Further, the same had to be
determined in the light of the relevant facts in the case and the
extant rules/guidelines for grant of benefits of financial
upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme. It had clearly emerged
thereby that the Applicant was appointed in the Group-A post of
A.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE) w.e.f. 08/23.01.2007, which was in an
organized Group-A service of the Central Government. Hence, as
per the extant M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines issued on 19.05.2009
by the D.oP.&T., he was per se not covered for financial
upgradations under the M.A.C.P. Scheme after 23.01.2007.
Accordingly, he would also not be eligible per se for a 3rd financial
upgradation on completion of 30 years of continuous regular
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
service on 04.10.2008.

LAL
KUMAWAT

14
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


14. Nonetheless, since vide the O.M. dated 19.05.2009 for
M.A.C.P. Scheme itself, D.oP.&T. was authorized for any
interpretation/clarification of doubt as to the scope and meaning
of the provisions of the M.A.C.P. Scheme – it had issued the
clarificatory O.M. dated 13.06.2012 in the context of references
received from various Departments regarding officers who were
deprived of the benefits of M.A.C.P. Scheme due to their induction
into an organised Group-A Services at a late stage of their
service. After considering the issue in consultation with
Department of Expenditure, the D.oP.&T had thereby clarified that
although no benefits under the M.A.C.P. Scheme were applicable
to Group-A officers of Organised Group-A Services, yet it had
been decided to allow grant of financial up-gradations under
M.A.C.P. Scheme with effect from the due date to those officers
who were inducted to the Organized Group 'A' Services when they
were nearing retirement, subject to the condition that an
evaluation of up-gradations/promotions earned by the officer
would be made only at the time of retirement. In case such
officers had already attained three financial upgradations under
M.A.C.P. Scheme, they shall not be entitled for Non-Functional
Upgradation (N.F.U.) to the same grade from a later date. Those
binding guidelines/clarifications thereto had been accepted as
valid by the Applicant, as well as purportedly complied with as
interpreted/understood at first vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of
the Respondent No.3 – by allowing the 3rd financial upgradation
to the Applicant w.e.f. 04.10.2008, i.e. from the date of
completion of 30 years of regular service by him.

15. However, after the Applicant having been allowed a 3rd
financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 vide the Order dated
27.05.2013, the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue had received
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
references for clarification in respect of admissibility of financial
LAL
KUMAWAT
upgradation in respect of officers – who had been appointed on

15
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


promotion from Superintendent (CE) as A.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) in a
Group-A organized Service, but had further been also
promoted/upgraded as D.C. in the I.R.S.(C&CE) before their
retirement on superannuation. Upon due consultation with the
D.oP.&T., it had been clarified vide the Letter dated 07.12.2016 of
the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue that since the officers who
were working as D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) had already got three
promotions in their service period from entry grade of Inspector
(CE), they were not eligible for any further financial upgradation
under M.A.C.P. Scheme. Accordingly, Respondents had proceeded
vide Order dated 27.02.2017 to withdraw the 3rd financial
upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme granted to the Applicant
previously vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of Respondent No.3.

16. It would emerge that while the aforesaid latter clarification
issued in consultation with D.oP.&T. had been complied with vide
Order dated 27.02.2017 of the Respondent No.3, the Applicant
had not accepted the same as valid and had impugned the same
vide the present O.A. Such pick-and-choose inherent in such
selective acceptance of binding clarifications by the D.oP.&T. of
the M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines was untenable. The extant
D.oP.&T. M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines/clarifications had to prevail
; and the said action of the Respondents for inadmissibility of a
3rd financial upgradation for the Applicant – who had been
appointed on promotion from Superintendent (CE) as A.C.,
I.R.S.(C&CE) in a Group-A organized Service ; and had further
been also promoted/upgraded as D.C. in the I.R.S.(C&CE) on
08/23.01.2012 before retirement on superannuation on
31.05.2013 – was shown to be in accordance with the extant
guidelines and binding clarifications related thereto. Such action
of the Respondents was found to be legally correct as such ; and
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
the same action cannot be deemed as illegal.
LAL
KUMAWAT

16
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


rd
17. Regarding the technical ground that the previous grant of 3
financial upgradation had been made upon the recommendations
of the Screening Committee at its meeting dated 21.05.2013, the
role of the Screening Committee was to recommend the cases for
M.A.C.P. Scheme benefits to the Appointing Authority ; however,
the Appointing Authority was competent/empowered to accept or
reject such recommendations. Moreover, the recommendations of
the Screening Committee dated 21.05.2013, as well as the Order
dated 27.05.2013 of Respondent No.3, had to be strictly in
accordance with the extant guidelines related to M.A.C.P. Scheme
and not otherwise, for those to be valid. Since the aforesaid
proceedings of the Screening Committee dated 21.05.2013 and
the consequent Order dated 27.05.2013 had been found to be de
hors the eligibility condition laid down by extant M.A.C.P. Scheme
guidelines/clarifications thereto of D.oP.&T. – those cannot be
held to be valid or to be in force till reconsideration by a review
meeting of the Screening Committee. Mere issuance of such
recommendations by Screening Committee or any Orders in
pursuance thereof cannot convert the grant of 3rd financial
upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme to the Applicant to be legal ;
and that would not create any vested right for the Applicant per
se. It was open for the Respondents to correct the mistake in
accordance with the entitlement of the Applicant as per extant
M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines and clarifications thereto.

18. Regarding the objection that the Applicant had not been
allowed the opportunity of hearing prior to issue of the impugned
Order dated 28.02.2017 by Respondent No.3 for withdrawing the
grant of 3rd financial upgradation as per principles of natural
justice – it is noted that the Applicant had later made the
representations dated 07.03.2017 and 21.03.2017 to the
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
Respondent authorities, which had been considered and disposed
LAL
KUMAWAT
of with the approval of the competent authority vide the

17
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


impugned Letter dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of the
Respondent No.3. Relevantly in the present case, the Applicant
had not in any way shown that the non-observance of principles
of natural justice, as claimed by him, had prejudiced his case – as
was required to be shown as per the settled position in law. Per
contra, the extant M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines and clarifications
thereto, directly relevant to the case of the Applicant were for
inadmissibility of a 3rd financial upgradation for the Applicant.
Hence, in the present case, we found that the Applicant had
sought to rely only on principles of natural justice – without
showing how his case had been prejudiced thereby ; even when
the extant guidelines and clarifications thereto were followed by
the Respondents. We advert to the authority of the
Judgment/Order dated 28.04.2004 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
CA No.2785 of 2004 [2005 SCC (L&S) 785] in the case of Vice-
Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs.
Girdharilal Yadav , presented by the Respondents – whereby it
had been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put
in a straitjacket and should not be stretched too far – we hold
that the objection vide the present O.A. related to principles of
natural justice not being followed by the Respondents, without
showing how his case had been prejudiced thereby even when the
extant guidelines and clarifications thereto were followed by the
Respondents, tantamounted to stretching those principles too far.
It was thus untenable and would not help the present Applicant.

19. In the conspectus of all of the above, it was found that the
withdrawal of the 3rd financial upgradation – earlier allowed
w.e.f. 04.10.2008 vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of the
Respondent No.3, which itself was purportedly based upon the
recommendations of the D.P.C. dated 21.05.2013 – was not
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
required to be interfered with. The claim of the Applicant for
LAL
KUMAWAT
quashing and setting aside – of the impugned Letter dated

18
O.A. No.337/2017 & No.338/2017


07.12.2016 of the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue ; and of the
impugned Order dated 28.02.2017 of the Respondent No.3 and of
the impugned Letter dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of the
Respondent No.3 – was not found tenable on merits and therefore
the same was liable to be rejected. It is rejected hereby.

The other relief as prayed for by the Applicant – to be allowed
the benefit of the earlier Order dated 27.05.2013 for a 3rd
financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008, as well as to make
payment of arrears accordingly – would also thus be inadmissible.

20. Therefore, the present O.A. is dismissed on merit. Pending
M.A.s, if any, shall also be disposed of in accordance.

21. The O.A. No.338/2017 shall also stand disposed of ipso facto
in terms of the Order/directions herein above.


(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

kumawat



NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:29:32+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT