Disciplinary proceedings initiated after MACP eligibility cannot retrospectively defeat financial upgradation.

The applicant joined the Department of Posts in 1995 and received his first financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in 2010.

He claimed a second upgradation on completing 20 years’ service in July 2015, but the Department denied it, stating that his APARs did not meet the “Very Good” benchmark.

The Department also relied on disciplinary proceedings initiated in September 2015, which resulted in a penalty in May 2016.

Following departmental consideration and representations, the applicant brought this OA seeking the second MACP benefit and consequential relief.

The Tribunal allowed the OA and directed reconsideration.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for a second MACP upgradation from 10 July 2015 was to be assessed against the applicable APAR benchmark, or against the revised “Very Good” benchmark introduced with effect from 25 July 2016

2. Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated after the date on which the applicant became eligible for consideration could be relied upon to deny that upgradation

The Tribunal considered the MACP Scheme and the Department of Personnel and Training’s OM dated 28 September 2016, which substituted the prescribed benchmark for MACP upgradation with “Very Good” and made the change effective from 25 July 2016.

The Department of Posts’ clarification dated 2 July 2018 stated that the revised benchmark applies where MACP falls due on or after 25 July 2016.

The Tribunal also considered the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in relation to the disciplinary proceedings.

It applied the principle that these revised instructions and the later disciplinary action could not be applied retrospectively to the applicant’s claim as it stood on the relevant eligibility date.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Tribunal treated 10 July 2015 as the relevant date for considering the applicant’s second MACP upgradation.

Because that date preceded the 25 July 2016 effective date of the revised benchmark, the Tribunal found that the later “Very Good” requirement could not be applied retrospectively.

It further held that the charge-sheet was issued only on 21 September 2015—after the relevant date—and therefore the subsequent disciplinary proceedings and penalty could not affect the applicant’s claim as of 10 July 2015.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents had wrongly relied on both the revised benchmark and the later disciplinary action to assess the claim retrospectively.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for second financial upgradation under MACP with effect from 10 July 2015.

If he was otherwise eligible, they were to grant the upgradation with consequential benefits.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.