ACP/MACP claims require individual service-record verification and reasoned consideration under applicable precedents.

The applicants, serving or retired Military Engineer Services (MES) employees, claimed entitlement to a second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in Grade Pay ₹2,400 and a consequential third upgradation under the MACP Scheme in Grade Pay ₹2,800.

They alleged that their claims had been assessed on a lower Grade Pay despite precedents concerning the merger or restructuring of pay scales.

The applicants relied on earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions, including D.S. Rawat, Union of India v. K.T. Akhtar, and Sharshti Kumar.

At the hearing, their counsel asked that the applications be treated as representations for decision by the competent authority; the respondents did not oppose consideration in accordance with law and subject to verification of the applicants’ service records.

Whether the applicants were entitled to the claimed second ACP and consequential third MACP upgradations in the specified Grade Pays.

Whether, given the need to verify each applicant’s service particulars and eligibility, the claims should be considered in the first instance by the competent authority.

The Tribunal identified the ACP Scheme dated 9 August 1999, the MACP Scheme dated 19 May 2009, and the applicable rules, instructions, and departmental communications as the governing framework.

It also directed consideration of the cited decisions, including D.S. Rawat v. Union of India & Ors., Union of India & Ors. v. K.T. Akhtar & Ors., Baldev Singh & Ors., Madan Lal & Ors., Chaman Lal v. Garrison Engineer, and Sharshti Kumar & Others v. Union of India & Others, to the extent applicable.

The Tribunal did not itself determine the substantive legal effect of those schemes or precedents; it left the applicable law and the applicants’ entitlement open for the competent authority to decide.

The Tribunal considered that the connected applications raised a common ACP/MACP grievance but that the applicants’ service histories might differ, including as to qualifying service, promotions, prior financial upgradations, pay particulars, and retirement status.

Because those matters required individual record-based verification, and because the applicants sought that course at the hearing, the Tribunal remitted the claims rather than deciding entitlement on the merits.

It required the competent authority to assess whether each applicant was similarly situated to the employees covered by the cited decisions and otherwise eligible under the governing scheme.

It expressed no opinion on the merits and left all questions of fact and law open.

There was no order as to costs.