Authorities cannot belatedly withdraw granted MACP benefits at retirement based on previously known dies-non periods.

The applicant, a retired Multi-Tasking Staff member of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, entered service on 27 January 1992 and retired on superannuation on 31 January 2022 after more than 30 years of service.

She had earlier been granted the 1st ACP and 2nd MACP on completion of the prescribed periods of service, and was subsequently granted the 3rd MACP in Level 4, with pay fixation at ₹38,600, through Annexures A-4 and A-5.

However, after her retirement, the respondents reviewed and cancelled the 3rd MACP on the ground that 8.5 days of absence had been treated as dies-non, reducing her qualifying service to 29 years, 11 months and 27.5 days.

Consequently, her pension and retiral benefits were calculated on the basis of Level 3 pay at ₹37,200 instead of the revised Level 4 pay.

Her representation was rejected, and she challenged the cancellation orders and sought restoration of the 3rd MACP with consequential revision of pension and other retirement benefits.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in withdrawing the applicant’s 3rd MACP on the basis of the period of dies-non, despite having earlier granted her the 1st ACP and 2nd MACP after considering her service record?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme after completing 10 years in the same grade/pay level and more than 30 years of service?

3. Whether the respondents could review and cancel the 3rd MACP and consequential pay fixation after its grant by the competent authority and the recommendation of the Screening Committee?

The Tribunal applied the MACP Scheme governing entitlement to financial upgradations, under which an employee becomes eligible for the 3rd MACP after completing 30 years of service or, in the relevant circumstances, 10 years of continuous service in the same grade pay/pay level.

It also applied the principle that an authority cannot belatedly rely on service-related facts, already available in the service records and previously disregarded while granting earlier ACP/MACP benefits, to deny the final financial upgradation at the end of an employee’s service.

The Tribunal further held that the respondents could not unsettle the 3rd MACP granted on the recommendation of the Screening Committee without sufficient justification, and distinguished the decision in OA No. 2215/2012 of the CAT Principal Bench as factually inapplicable.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had entered service on 27 January 1992, had received the 1st ACP and 2nd MACP on 27 January 2004 and 27 January 2012 respectively, and had thereafter completed the requisite period for the 3rd MACP.

Although the respondents relied on certain periods of unauthorised absence treated as dies-non, those periods were already known to them when the earlier ACP/MACP benefits were granted and had not previously been treated as a bar to financial upgradation.

The applicant’s 3rd MACP had also been recommended by the Screening Committee and implemented through pay fixation at ₹38,600 in Level 4.

The Tribunal therefore held that withdrawal of the benefit after retirement amounted to an unjustified second thought and that the respondents could not rely on the same service record at the final stage of service to retrospectively deny the benefit.

It directed the respondents to restore the applicant’s 3rd MACP and pay fixation at ₹38,600 in Level 4 in terms of Annexures A-4 and A-5, and to grant arrears of pay, revised pension and all other consequential retirement benefits within 60 days from receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.