Conditional Entitlement to MACP Benefits Based on Supreme Court's Final Decision

The Applicant, D. Gangadharappa, filed an Original Application seeking directions for the Respondents to grant him II-MACP benefits under the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009, effective from 01.09.2008, with consequential benefits, by modifying an impugned PTO.

During arguments, the Applicant's counsel contended that the case was identical to "N. Prasad vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No.13837/2017 (S-CAT)," decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on 29.10.2024.

The High Court's judgment in N. Prasad's case has been stayed by an interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.03.2025 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.9677/2025.

The SLP is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Both parties agreed that a conditional order should be passed, contingent upon the final decision in the N. Prasad SLP.

Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of II-MACP benefits.

Whether the Applicant's case can be conditionally decided based on the outcome of a similar pending case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The court primarily applied the principle of judicial economy and consistency in granting relief conditionally based on the outcome of a case involving identical facts and legal issues that is pending before a higher judicial authority.

This principle allows for the deferment of a final decision until a precedent-setting case is resolved, ensuring uniformity in application of law.

The MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009 was the subject matter of the relief sought.

The Tribunal recognized the similarity between the Applicant's claim for II-MACP benefits and the case of N. Prasad, which had been decided by the Karnataka High Court.

Crucially, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's order in N. Prasad's case, rendering it non-final for precedential purposes.

Both parties consented to a conditional order, which allowed the Tribunal to align the outcome of the present case with the eventual decision in the pending Supreme Court matter.

This approach avoided premature adjudication on a matter that was under review by the apex court and ensured that the Applicant would receive the same benefits as N. Prasad, thereby maintaining parity.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant shall be entitled to the same benefits as those finally granted to N. Prasad in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 9677/2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The department was directed to grant the same benefits to the Applicant if they are granted to N. Prasad.

Each party was directed to bear their own costs.