ACP upgradation to the pre-revised Rs. 3050–4590 scale must be counted under MACPS.

The applicant, a retired Ward Sahayika, was appointed on 25 January 1973 and retired on 31 January 2009 after approximately 36 years of service.

She had received financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme, including the second ACP in the pre-revised pay scale of ₹3050–4590 with effect from 9 August 1999.

Following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and the MACP Scheme, her pay was fixed in PB-1 with Grade Pay of ₹1900 from 1 January 2006, and she was subsequently granted Grade Pay of ₹2000 and ₹2400 as second and third MACP benefits from 1 September 2008.

Her representations were rejected by orders dated 10 December 2019 and 2 January 2020, which she challenged before the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant’s ACP upgradation to the pre-revised scale of ₹3050–4590 was liable to be ignored while determining her entitlement under the MACP Scheme.

Whether the applicant was entitled to MACP benefits with effect from 1 January 2006 rather than 1 September 2008.

Whether the MACP Scheme entitled the applicant to Grade Pay of ₹2800 and thereafter ₹4200 on the basis of her length of service or the promotional hierarchy.

Whether the impugned orders dated 10 December 2019 and 2 January 2020 warranted interference.

Whether the original application was barred by limitation under Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the DoP&T O.M. dated 16 November 2009, which provides that ACP upgradations to the four erstwhile Group ‘D’ scales corresponding to Grade Pay of ₹1800 are to be ignored for MACP purposes, whereas promotions or financial upgradations to Grade Pay of ₹1900, corresponding to the pre-revised scale of ₹3050–4590, are to be counted.

It relied on Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421, holding that MACP is an incentive scheme governed by the standard Grade Pay/Pay Level hierarchy and not by the promotional hierarchy.

It further relied on Union of India v. R.K. Sharma & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1579/2021, decided on 28 April 2021, which held that MACP benefits operate from 1 September 2008 and not from 1 January 2006.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that a stale pay-fixation claim cannot be revived merely by submitting a belated representation, although pension claims may contain a recurring element in appropriate cases.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s second ACP in the scale of ₹3050–4590 corresponded to Grade Pay of ₹1900.

Under the express language of the O.M. dated 16 November 2009, such an upgradation was required to be counted for MACP purposes; only upgradations corresponding to Grade Pay of ₹1800 were liable to be ignored.

The Tribunal further held that, in view of M.V. Mohanan Nair, MACP progression had to be determined according to the prescribed Grade Pay hierarchy and not according to the hierarchy of promotional posts.

Her claim for retrospective MACP benefits from 1 January 2006 was also rejected in light of R.K. Sharma, which fixed the operative date of the MACP Scheme as 1 September 2008.

The alleged parity with employees of other departments was rejected because the applicant had not established that those employees were similarly situated in terms of cadre, applicable rules, prior ACP/MACP benefits and governing service conditions.

The Tribunal additionally found that the challenge to the original pay fixation, made more than a decade after retirement and after settlement of pensionary benefits, was stale; the subsequent representations and rejection orders did not create a fresh cause of action.

She was not entitled to MACP benefits from 1 January 2006, nor to Grade Pay of ₹2800 or ₹4200 on the basis of her length of service or promotional hierarchy.

The impugned orders dated 10 December 2019 and 2 January 2020 were upheld, and O.A. No. 870/2020 was dismissed on merits and also found to suffer from substantial delay; there was no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.