Ex-Navy Sailor Missed Mandatory Course 4 Times Due To Low Medical Category, Yet 2nd MACP Denial Stands After He Declined Further Engagement: Delhi HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to second MACP despite not completing the mandatory PO ‘Q’ QA course, where several non-deputations were due to his low medical category but he later declined further engagement.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to second MACP because he had not completed the mandatory course and his own unwillingness for further engagement prevented his deputation when the residual-service requirement became relevant.

It also directed

Finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal’s order, it dismissed the writ petition and the pending application.

01Facts

The petitioner served in the Indian Navy from 31 July 2002 until discharge on expiry of his engagement on 31 July 2017.

¶ 2

He was promoted to Acting LS QA II and later placed in a permanent low medical category due to recurrent shoulder dislocation, a disability found attributable, though not aggravated, by military service.

¶ 2, 9

He sought second financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme, but had not completed the mandatory PO ‘Q’ QA course.

¶ 9

After the Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed his application, he challenged that decision under Article 226, seeking the second MACP benefit in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800.

¶ 1, 3, 9–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to second MACP despite not completing the mandatory PO ‘Q’ QA course, where several non-deputations were due to his low medical category but he later declined further engagement.

¶ 10–11

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of his application disclosed an error warranting interference under Article 226.

¶ 1, 13

03Law Applied

The Ministry of Defence letter dated 19 May 2011 adopted the MACP scheme for relevant Indian Navy personnel; the parties accepted that completion of the PO ‘Q’ QA course was mandatory for the second MACP.

¶ 3, 7, 11

The Court considered Navy Order (Str) 02/2007, paragraphs 14(a) and (b), which required three years’ residual service on completion of the course, and NI 02/96, paragraph 4(B)(iii) of Appendix I, concerning the course as a promotion criterion.

¶ 6–7

It also applied the principle in Union of India v. Manju Arora, (2022) 2 SCC 151, that an employee who consciously forgoes regular promotion cannot claim financial upgradation on a contrary basis, under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.

¶ 7, 12

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the petitioner could not be faulted for four non-deputations caused by his low medical category, but found that other occasions involved his hospitalization or failure to report.

¶ 11

When he was nominated again, he lacked the required three years’ residual service and was asked to express willingness for further engagement.

¶ 10–11

The record showed that he voluntarily signed an unwillingness certificate, aware of its consequences.

¶ 10–11

Since the course was mandatory for second MACP and the petitioner did not complete it, the Court found no basis to grant the benefit.

¶ 11

His position—that he had not refused the course but that his unwillingness for further service should not affect his claim—was also inconsistent with the principle against approbating and reprobating.

¶ 12