Applicants may withdraw proceedings and pursue individual representations for third MACP, followed by appropriate legal remedies.

The thirteen applicants, all stated to be retired ANS personnel, instituted an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal against AIIMS and related authorities, along with M.A. No. 2474/2026.

They sought grant of the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit from the date on which it became due, relying on the order dated 14 March 2023 in OA No. 3495/2015.

After some arguments, counsel for the applicants, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw both proceedings, with liberty to submit individual representations to the respondents and thereafter approach the appropriate forum for redressal.

Whether the applicants should be permitted to withdraw the Original Application filed vide Diary No. 2560/2026 and M.A. No. 2474/2026.

Whether the applicants should be granted liberty to submit individual representations seeking third MACP benefits and subsequently approach the appropriate forum, if necessary.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that an applicant may withdraw proceedings through counsel acting on instructions, subject to the Tribunal’s order.

It further recognised that withdrawal may be accompanied by liberty to pursue an alternative or subsequent remedy, including submitting representations to the competent authority and approaching the appropriate forum thereafter.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive entitlement to third MACP benefits, nor did it determine the applicability of the order dated 14 March 2023 in OA No. 3495/2015.

The applicants expressly sought withdrawal of the pending proceedings after arguments had commenced and requested liberty to first pursue individual administrative representations.

Since the request was made by their counsel on instructions and did not require determination of the merits of their MACP claim, the Tribunal accepted the procedural request.

The Tribunal preserved the applicants’ ability to seek administrative and subsequent judicial redress, while leaving the substantive claim—including the date from which the third MACP was allegedly due—to be considered in the appropriate proceedings.

It granted the applicants liberty to approach the respondents through individual representations seeking grant of third MACP from the date on which it became due and, thereafter, to approach the appropriate forum for redressal in terms of the order dated 14 March 2023 in OA No. 3495/2015.

No finding was recorded on the merits of the applicants’ entitlement to the third MACP.