Entitlement to 3rd MACP Upon Completion of 10 Years Continuous Service in Same Grade Post-Second Promotion

The petitioners, retired government employees aged approximately 66 and 65 years respectively, approached the High Court seeking the benefit of the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) with effect from 15.11.2014

They challenged Clause 3 (Kha) of the Screening Committee’s decision dated 06.12.2022, which rejected their claims

The petitioners contended that the respondents misinterpreted Clause 20 (ga) of Appendix-I of the MACP Scheme (Resolution dated 01.09.2009). While the State initially denied the benefit on the ground that the petitioners had not completed 30 years of service, the petitioners argued they were covered under Clause 20 (Kha), which allows for the 3rd MACP after 10 years of continuous service in the same grade following a 2nd promotion

During proceedings, the State admitted in a counter-affidavit dated 18.08.2025 that the Finance Department had proposed a fresh Screening Committee meeting to reconsider the matter, but such meeting had not yet been finalized

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the 3rd MACP benefit under Clause 20 (Kha) of the MACP Scheme upon completion of 10 years of service in the same grade post-second promotion

2. Whether the Court should direct the respondent-State to convene the proposed Screening Committee meeting to resolve the pending claims within a specific timeline

The court applied the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme as implemented via Finance Department Resolution No. 2981 dated 01.09.2009, specifically Clause 20 (Kha) and 20 (ga) of Appendix-I

These rules establish the criteria for financial upgradation based on either total years of service (30 years) or periodic intervals of service in a single grade (10 years) following a prior promotion

The court observed that the primary dispute stemmed from the interpretation of different clauses within the MACP Scheme—specifically whether the "30 years of service" rule or the "10 years in the same grade" rule applied to the petitioners

Rather than adjudicating the technical merits of the individual service records, the Court focused on the State's own admission in its counter-affidavit

The State acknowledged that the Finance Department had already identified the need for a re-evaluation and had proposed a fresh Screening Committee meeting under the Chairmanship of the Member, Board of Revenue

Since the State had already initiated the process of reconsideration but failed to conclude it, the Court determined that the most appropriate remedy was to compel the executive to finalize this administrative review rather than allowing the claims to remain in limbo

The Court ordered that this meeting must be conducted as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 weeks from the date the order is uploaded. It further clarified that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons shall be entitled to benefits strictly in accordance with the applicable Government Notifications