Financial upgradation under MACP is purely personal and cannot be claimed for stepping up of pay.

The applicants were initially appointed as clerks and subsequently promoted to the posts of Assistant Accounts Officers (AAOs) and Accounts Officers (AOs) after qualifying departmental examinations

Under the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme following the VI Pay Commission, certain subordinates (directly recruited Junior Accountants who stagnated as Senior Accountants) were granted financial upgradations, resulting in a Grade Pay of ₹5400/-

The applicants, despite holding higher promotional posts, were drawing a Grade Pay of ₹4800/-

The applicants sought "stepping up" of their pay to ₹5400/- to achieve parity with their subordinates, relying on a Madras Bench decision in O.A. No. 966/2009

The respondents contended that MACP benefits are personal to the employee, do not affect seniority, and that the cadres and modes of recruitment differed

Whether senior employees (AAOs/AOs) are entitled to the stepping up of their Grade Pay to match that of their subordinates (Senior Accountants) who received higher Grade Pay through financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.

DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 04.11.1993, which stipulates that stepping up of pay is permissible only if both the junior and senior officers belong to the same cadre and the posts are identical

Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421, which established that financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is a fallback option for stagnating employees, is purely personal to the individual, and does not grant a right to parity based on seniority

Union of India v. The Registrar, CAT Madras Bench (W.P. No. 9010/2017), which set aside previous orders granting parity in similar circumstances

The Tribunal reasoned that the anomaly complained of—where subordinates received a Grade Pay of ₹5400/- while seniors remained at ₹4800/-—arose because the subordinates qualified for financial upgradations under the specific timelines of the ACP and MACP Schemes (e.g., completing 24 years of service before 01.09.2008)

The Tribunal noted that the "stepping up" rules require identity of cadre and pay scales, which was not met here as the MACP benefits were personal to the subordinates

Relying on M.V. Mohanan Nair, the court observed that MACP is not a regular promotion and does not create a right for senior officers to claim parity

The court concluded that since the Madras High Court had already set aside the very order the applicants relied upon (O.A. No. 966/2009), the applicants’ claim lacked legal foundation

It held that the applicants are not entitled to the stepping up of Grade Pay to ₹5400/- at par with their subordinates because financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is personal to the recipient and does not entitle seniors to parity under the general rules of pay fixation

No costs were awarded