CAT Upholds Withdrawal Of Third MACP Upgrade For Two Retired Excise Deputy Commissioners Who Had Three Promotions From Inspector

The applicants entered service as Inspectors (Central Excise), were promoted to Superintendent, and later entered the organised Group-A Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) as Assistant Commissioners in January 2007.

Each had received two earlier financial upgradations/promotions. After completing 30 years of regular service, they were granted a third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 4 October 2008 by order dated 27 May 2013.

Following a CBEC clarification issued after consultation with DoPT, the department concluded that officers who had been promoted as Deputy Commissioners had already received three promotions from the Inspector entry grade and were not eligible for the third MACP upgradation. The grant was withdrawn by order dated 28 February 2017; the applicants’ representations were rejected, and they challenged those decisions in these applications.

The Tribunal applied the DoPT MACP Scheme dated 19 May 2009, which excluded officers of organised Group-A services from MACP benefits, together with the DoPT clarification dated 13 June 2012 concerning officers inducted into such services at a later stage of their careers and the CBEC clarification dated 7 December 2016, issued after consultation with DoPT.

It held that MACP benefits must be granted in accordance with the Scheme and binding DoPT clarifications; an erroneous grant does not create an enforceable right, and an administrative mistake may be corrected.

Relying on Union of India v. Harbans Lal Verma, 2026 INSC 739, the Tribunal treated DoPT-consulted clarifications as binding in administering the MACP Scheme.

It also applied the principle that a breach of natural justice does not, without demonstrated prejudice, necessarily invalidate a decision, relying on Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had entered an organised Group-A service before the date on which they claimed the third upgradation and later served as Deputy Commissioners.

It accepted the department’s DoPT-consulted clarification that officers in that position had already received three promotions from the Inspector entry grade and were therefore ineligible for the claimed MACP benefit.

The earlier Screening Committee recommendation and grant could not override the Scheme or create a vested entitlement; the department could correct the mistaken grant without convening a review committee.

The applicants also failed to show how the absence of a prior hearing had prejudiced their cases, so the natural-justice objection did not warrant relief.

It dismissed O.A. No. 337/2017 on the merits, directed that O.A. No. 338/2017 stand disposed of on the same terms, and disposed of the pending miscellaneous applications accordingly.