Dismissal of MACP upgradation claim upheld due to failure to meet "Very Good" benchmark.

The applicant, John S. Paul, retired as a Purchase Officer from the Department of Atomic Energy, having joined service on March 1, 1990, and promoted to Purchase Officer on March 1, 1997.

He retired on March 31, 2013, with a Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-.

His next promotion was to Deputy Director with a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, but he was continuously overlooked despite being the senior-most Purchase Officer.

He filed O.A. No. 1227/2011, directing respondents to consider his promotion claim by disregarding ACRs for 2005-2006 to 2009-2010.

A Review DPC subsequently rejected his claim, which was upheld in O.A. No. 1139/2013 because he scored 73 marks against a benchmark of 80 for a selection post.

With the MACP Scheme effective from September 1, 2008, the applicant sought 2nd financial upgradation to a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- from September 1, 2008, having completed more than 10 years in the same Grade Pay.

He filed O.A. No. 865/2017, which directed respondents to reconsider his case for MACP, placing it before a Screening Committee to consider ACRs in light of O.A. No. 1227/2011 and grant benefits if he met the benchmark after September 1, 2008.

Subsequently, the Screening Committee found him 'unfit' based on Annexure A-6 order.

The order in O.A. No. 865/2017 was later modified by the Hon'ble High Court in O.P.(CAT) No. 172/2024 on October 30, 2024, by deleting the line "if the applicant has acquired benchmark grading during any spell after 01.09.2008, necessarily, he should be granted benefits of such upgradation."

The High Court directed reconsideration of the claim for MACP.

Following this, Annexure A-9 order, dated January 14, 2025, from the 4th respondent, approved that the applicant was 'unfit' for the 2nd financial upgradation to Level 12 (Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-).

The applicant challenged this in the present O.A.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme from September 1, 2008, to the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-.

Whether the decision in Annexure A-9, which held the applicant "unfit" for the 2nd financial upgradation due to not meeting the "Very Good" benchmark, is legally sustainable.

The court applied the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, which came into force on September 1, 2008, based on the 6th CPC recommendations, providing for 3 financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service.

It relied on the Administrative Officer's Report (ACRs) and Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) as the basis for determining fitness for promotion and financial upgradation.

The benchmark for the 2nd financial upgradation, similar to promotion to Deputy Director, was "Very Good".

The court also considered the guidelines from DoP&T O.M dated 19.05.2009 and subsequent O.M dated 21.11.2022 for financial upgradations.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claim for 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, noting that the benchmark requirement for both promotion to Deputy Director and financial upgradation was "Very Good".

The applicant's previous attempt for promotion to Deputy Director was rejected by a Review DPC, and upheld by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1139/2013, because he failed to meet the required benchmark of 80 marks, securing only 73 marks.

The present Screening Committee, considering the ACRs for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2005, also found the applicant 'unfit' stating he did not meet the "Very Good" benchmark.

While the O.A. No. 865/2017 initially contained a direction to grant benefits if the applicant had met the benchmark after 01.09.2008, this specific part was set aside by the High Court in O.P.(CAT) No. 172/2024, directing reconsideration in terms of the modified order.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's argument that being considered for promotion implies eligibility for financial upgradation was unsustainable, given that the Review DPC had already found his gradings "far below the benchmark fixed".

The factual matrix, based on the documents submitted, did not support the applicant's claim.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to the 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme as he failed to meet the required benchmark of "Very Good," a finding consistently made by review DPCs and screening committees.

Therefore, the Annexure A-9 order holding him 'unfit' was sustained.

No costs were awarded.