Employees reaching the terminal MCM post after three upgradations have no entitlement to an additional MACP increment.

The applicants, employees or retired employees of the Military Engineer Services (MES), claimed one additional increment at 3% on account of completion of 30 years of service and grant of third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, while drawing Grade Pay of ₹4,200.

They relied upon the communication dated 14.12.2016 issued by the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence and upon the benefit allegedly granted to Bishnu Lal and Shamsher Chand pursuant to proceedings in O.A. No. 061/00438/2018.

Their representations were rejected by orders dated 05.01.2022 and February 2022, which they challenged under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents contended that the applicants had already received three financial/pay upgradations, had reached the terminal post of Master Craftsman (MCM) carrying Grade Pay of ₹4,200, and that there was no promotional post of Chargeman in the MES tradesmen hierarchy.

Most applicants had also retired before institution of the proceedings.

Whether the applicants, after having received the admissible regular promotions/ACP/MACP benefits and reached the terminal post of MCM, were entitled to an additional 3% increment on completion of 30 years of service?

Whether the applicants could claim parity with Bishnu Lal and Shamsher Chand merely because a similar benefit had been extended to them in a separate case?

Whether the applicants’ claims were liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, since their pay fixation and financial upgradations had remained settled for several years?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the governing principles of the ACP/MACP Scheme, including the departmental instruction dated 31.12.2012 that financial upgradation cannot exceed the benefit admissible on normal promotion.

The communication dated 14.12.2016 was construed in the context of progression from MCM to Chargeman carrying the same Grade Pay, and not as creating an independent entitlement to an additional increment where no such promotional post existed in the applicable hierarchy.

The Tribunal further applied the principles that equality cannot be claimed in disregard of statutory rules and service structure, and that stale service claims cannot ordinarily be revived through subsequent representations or by relying on benefits granted in an individual case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants did not dispute having received three financial/pay upgradations and having reached MCM, the terminal post in the MES tradesmen hierarchy.

Since no post of Chargeman existed in that hierarchy, the communication dated 14.12.2016 could not support the applicants’ claim for an additional 3% increment.

The MACP Scheme was intended to alleviate stagnation and could not be used to create an additional promotional or financial stage unavailable under the governing service structure.

The benefit granted to Bishnu Lal and Shamsher Chand did not establish a general legal entitlement, particularly as the earlier Tribunal order merely directed consideration of their claim and did not declare a universal right for all MES employees.

The applicants also failed to explain why their earlier pay fixation and financial upgradations had not been challenged at the appropriate time; the subsequent rejection of their representations could not revive an otherwise stale claim.

Accordingly, the respondents’ decision had a rational basis and was neither arbitrary nor contrary to the applicable instructions.

The claim for parity with Bishnu Lal and Shamsher Chand was also rejected, as the benefit granted in that individual case did not create a general entitlement.

The Original Application was dismissed; the orders dated 05.01.2022 and February 2022 were upheld.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.