30 Years’ Service Alone Doesn’t Guarantee Third MACP: CAT Orders Fresh Review Of Postal Employee’s Claim

The Applicant joined the Department of Posts as a Sorting Assistant on 10 February 1983, was promoted as Inspector of Post Offices in 1996, received an ACP upgradation in 2007, and was substantively promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Posts in 2009.

He was suspended from 27 April to 13 November 2012.

A charge memorandum was issued in February 2013, and disciplinary proceedings concluded with a penalty of reduction by one pay stage for one year, without cumulative effect, from 16 March 2016.

The Department granted him the third MACP financial upgradation from 17 March 2017, after the penalty period ended.

The Applicant sought the upgradation from the date he claimed to have completed 30 years of service in February 2013, contending that no charge memorandum had then been issued.

The Tribunal noted that the record did not include the relevant Screening Committee proceedings and that the parties’ submissions were inadequate to determine eligibility under the applicable MACP provisions.

The MACP Scheme provides for consideration of financial upgradations upon completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, subject to the scheme’s applicable eligibility conditions and DoPT instructions and clarifications.

Completion of the required service period is a necessary condition but is not, by itself, sufficient to establish entitlement; other prescribed requirements, including vigilance clearance and performance benchmarks, may apply.

The Tribunal also stated the general principle that statutory rules must be followed and cannot be displaced by estoppel or acquiescence.

No specific precedent was identified in the order.

The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant had completed 30 years of regular service in 2013 and had received only two upgradations or promotions by then, but held that these facts did not establish his entitlement to the third MACP upgradation.

The relevant Screening Committee proceedings were absent, leaving it unclear whether and how his case had been considered, while the parties had not adequately addressed the applicable eligibility provisions.

The Tribunal therefore did not decide whether the suspension, contemplated disciplinary action or subsequent charge memorandum affected his eligibility; instead, it directed a review under the applicable MACP provisions.

The Respondents must convene a special review meeting of the Screening Committee, identify the applicable provisions and record its recommendation within eight weeks of receiving the order.

The competent authority must then issue a reasoned order on admissibility within a further eight weeks, including whether the 1 September 2016 order granting upgradation from 17 March 2017 should stand or be modified.

No order as to costs was made.