Financial upgradations under MACP are restricted to the next hierarchical grade pay, not promotional scales.

The thirteen applicants were initially appointed as Fireman Grade-II in 1982 and promoted to Fireman Grade-I in 1991.

Following the 6th CPC, their pay was fixed at a Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 1900. Under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme, they were granted a second financial upgradation with a GP of Rs. 2800 effective 10.02.2006, and subsequently a third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) upgradation with a GP of Rs. 4200 effective 10.07.2012.

Following representations by senior employees regarding pay anomalies, the respondents reviewed the fixations and determined that the applicants had been erroneously granted higher Grade Pays than permitted by the hierarchy. The respondents subsequently withdrew the GP of Rs. 4200 and initiated recovery of excess payments.

1. Whether the withdrawal of Grade Pay Rs. 4200 and the downward revision of the applicants' pay was legally sustainable under the ACP and MACP schemes.

2. Whether the recovery of excess payments from the applicants is barred by the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.

The court applied the ACP Scheme (in force until 31.08.2008) and the MACP Scheme (effective 01.09.2008) as clarified by the Ministry of Defence.

Under the ACP scheme, financial upgradations are granted to the pay scale of the next promotional post in the hierarchy.

Under the MACP scheme, upgradations are granted in the next immediate hierarchy of Grade Pay.

The court also considered the protective principles against recovery of overpayments established in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334.

The Tribunal found that at the time of the 2nd ACP (10.02.2006), the applicants held the post of Fireman (GP Rs. 1900), and the next promotional post in the hierarchy was Leading Fireman, which carried a GP of Rs. 2000. Granting a GP of Rs. 2800 was therefore a violation of ACP policy.

Regarding the 3rd MACP, the applicants were entitled to the next hierarchical GP above Leading Fireman, which was Rs. 2800, rather than the Rs. 4200 actually granted. The court reasoned that the respondents acted correctly in rectifying these technical errors to resolve senior-junior pay anomalies.

Regarding recovery, the Tribunal noted the applicants failed to specify which clause of the Rafiq Masih judgment protected them; furthermore, as the applicants were still in service and had previously requested to pay the recovery in easy installments rather than protesting the recovery itself, the plea against recovery was rejected.

The Tribunal held that there was no illegality in the respondents' actions to revise the pay scales. The Original Application was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.