After Tribunal Treated His 11-Month Exclusion From Work As Duty, Fireman’s 2nd MACP And Two Increments Must Be Considered

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for second MACP required consideration under the applicable scheme upon completion of 20 years’ regular service.

The court held

The Tribunal disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to consider the applicant for second MACP and, if he is otherwise eligible, pay the resulting differential arrears with simple interest at applicable GPF rates from the date the benefit became due until payment.

It also directed

It also directed consideration of annual increments for 2023–24 and 2024–25.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order; there was no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant, a civilian Fireman appointed in 2002 after military service, received his first MACP in 2012.

After proceeding on earned leave, he was not permitted to rejoin duty on 11 February 2022.

In OA No. 702/2022, the Tribunal ultimately directed that the period from 11 February 2022 to 19 January 2023 be treated as duty and that admissible pay and allowances be released.

pp. 2–5

The applicant then sought his second MACP on completion of 20 years’ service and annual increments for 2023–24 and 2024–25.

The respondents stated that they had issued an order treating the disputed period as duty and were processing his service and pension records.

pp. 5–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant’s claim for second MACP required consideration under the applicable scheme upon completion of 20 years’ regular service.

pp. 5–6, 7

ii.2. Whether the respondents were required to consider annual increments for 2023–24 and 2024–25 in light of the earlier order treating the disputed period as duty.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the jurisdictional basis for the application.

p. 1

The Tribunal applied the applicable MACP scheme and directed consideration of the applicant’s eligibility for second MACP upon completion of 20 years’ regular service; it did not hold that the applicant was automatically entitled to the upgradation.

p. 7

It also relied on its decision in OA No. 702/2022, dated 13 February 2026, and the respondents’ order dated 1 September 2026 treating the relevant period as duty, as the basis for considering the claimed increments.

p. 5, 7

No further statutory provision or precedent was identified as the basis for the directions in this order.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The respondents’ treatment of the disputed period as duty and their ongoing processing of the applicant’s records did not resolve whether he met the applicable conditions for second MACP or annual increments.

pp. 6–7

The Tribunal therefore directed the respondents to consider both claims under the applicable scheme and in light of the earlier duty-treatment order.

pp. 6–7

It left the question of actual eligibility—and any resulting monetary entitlement—to the respondents’ determination.

pp. 6–7