![Authorities Must Decide MACP Representation by a Reasoned Order Within 30 Days.. DEEPAK SHARMA vs GNCTD. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/authorities-must-decide-macp-representation-by-a-reasoned-order-within-30-days-86d46ad2aa7b4892b1c06b5cabf23721.webp)
Facts
The applicants, employees of the Drugs Control Department, challenged the denial of a second financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme to Pay Level 12, alleging that the benefit had been granted to their junior, Sh. Sundeep Balkrishna Jivnapurkar, with effect from 27 August 2021.
Source reference: p.2–3They had submitted representations dated 1 October 2024, 6 January 2025 and 16 March 2026, which they said remained undecided.
Source reference: p.2–3Although the application sought substantive relief concerning pay parity and consequential benefits, counsel for the applicants stated that they would be satisfied with a direction requiring the respondents to decide the latest representation by a reasoned order.
Source reference: p.3The Tribunal also allowed M.A. No. 5058/2026, seeking permission for the applicants to join in a single application.
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 16 March 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order.
Source reference: p.3–42. Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement to MACP upgradation and pay parity at this stage.
Source reference: p.3–4Law Applied
The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Source reference: p.2The Tribunal did not cite or apply any precedent, nor did it determine the substantive rules governing MACP eligibility or pay stepping-up.
Source reference: p.3–4It disposed of the matter on the limited relief pressed by the applicants, directing the competent respondents to consider the representation and decide it strictly in accordance with law through a reasoned and speaking order.
Source reference: p.3–4Reasoning
The applicants’ counsel narrowed the requested relief to a decision on the pending representation, and the respondents’ counsel accepted notice while seeking time to obtain instructions.
Source reference: p.3In view of that limited prayer, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the respondents to address the representation within a fixed period, without examining whether the applicants were substantively entitled to the same MACP benefit as their junior.
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 16 March 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.
The O.A. was disposed of without adjudicating its merits; pending M.As. were also disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
DEEPAK SHARMAvsGNCTD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
