Administrative lapse in omitting the mandatory option clause in promotion orders entitles employees to late re-fixation of pay.

The applicant, a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Brahmaputra Board, was granted his 2nd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- effective from 18.06.2010 via an order dated 08.07.2011.

The applicant contended that the MACP order dated 08.07.2011 lacked an "option clause," which is a mandatory administrative requirement allowing employees to choose whether to fix pay from the date of promotion or the date of their next annual increment.

He submitted a representation on 15.12.2011 (beyond the 30-day limit) requesting re-fixation from his next increment date, 01.07.2010.

The respondents rejected his claim via a speaking order dated 06.11.2020 on the grounds of delay.

1. Whether the respondents' failure to incorporate an option clause in the MACP/promotion order entitles the applicant to exercise his option beyond the prescribed one-month period.

2. Whether the impugned speaking order dated 06.11.2020, which rejected the applicant’s claim for re-fixation, is legally sustainable.

The Tribunal relied on the MACP Scheme Para 7 of Annexure 1 read with FR 22(1)(a)(1) and DOPT OM dated 12.12.1997 and 10.08.2007, which mandate that an option clause must be incorporated in promotion orders to prevent administrative lapses in exercising options.

The principle established by the CAT Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1121/2011, which held that an employee cannot be penalized for failing to exercise an option within the time limit if the department failed to inform them of the right to choose the date of fixation in the promotion order.

The Tribunal found that the respondents admittedly failed to include the necessary option clause in the office order dated 08.07.2011, violating Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) mandates and the Handbook for Central Government Staff 2009.

Since the omission was an administrative lapse, the applicant could not be expected to know the procedural nuances of FR 22.

Relying on the Vimal Kumar case precedent, the Tribunal observed that the applicant suffered a recurring monetary loss due to a fault attributable solely to the respondents.

The rejection of the applicant's 15.12.2011 representation on "hyper-technical" grounds of delay was arbitrary and mechanical, as the respondents’ own failure to provide notice of the option clause vitiated the time-bar.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to allow the applicant to submit a fresh option and subsequently re-fix his salary in the 2nd MACP grade, taking into account his representation dated 15.12.2011.

The applicant was declared eligible for all consequential and arrear benefits, with a compliance deadline of three months.