A Selection Grade granted after second MACP precludes entitlement to third MACP.

The applicant, appointed as a Beldar on 13 December 1983, received first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme from 9 August 1999 and was later promoted as a Mason.

He received second MACP from 1 September 2008 and Selection Grade from 11 October 2009.

He sought second ACP from 14 December 2007 and third MACP on completion of 30 years’ service, effective 13 December 2013.

The respondents rejected his claim, citing his failure to pass the required Trade Test and his subsequent grant of Selection Grade.

After the rejection of his representation, he filed this OA seeking, among other reliefs, quashing of the rejection orders and consequential financial benefits.

Whether the applicant was entitled to second ACP from 14 December 2007 despite not passing the prescribed Trade Test for Work Assistant.

Whether the applicant was entitled to third MACP on completion of 30 years’ service, notwithstanding the grant of Selection Grade after his second MACP.

The Tribunal applied the departmental instructions dated 20 February 2007, which made passing the Trade Test for Work Assistant a prerequisite for second ACP and provided that an earlier grant without passing the test should be withdrawn.

It also considered the CPWD Office Memorandum dated 9 June 2011, which granted Selection Grade after eight years of regular service in the skilled category to specified employees, including Masons; the OM did not specify whether Selection Grade was a promotion or financial upgradation.

Finally, relying on State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, the Tribunal applied the principle that Article 14 does not permit “negative equality”—an allegedly erroneous benefit given to others does not entitle a claimant to the same benefit.

The Tribunal held that the Trade Test requirement applied to the applicant.

Although the record did not establish that the Assistant Engineer directed him to attend the test, a letter informing him of the scheduled test had been endorsed to him; moreover, he had not shown that he represented for an opportunity to take the test before seeking second ACP in 2016.

The Tribunal therefore found him ineligible for second ACP.

As to third MACP, the applicant had received Selection Grade after his second MACP.

The Tribunal concluded that, whichever way the Selection Grade was characterised, the applicant was not entitled to third MACP in the circumstances.

The benefits allegedly granted to employees in another CPWD wing did not alter that conclusion because an erroneous benefit cannot found a claim to equal treatment.

It declined the requested financial upgradations and consequential reliefs; the associated MAs were also disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.