Inconsistent application of MACP deferment rules for refusing promotion across departments constitutes hostile discrimination.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 03.11.1979 and later regularized as Stenographer Grade ‘D’ on 28.04.1982

He received his 1st and 2nd financial upgradations under the ACP scheme on 09.08.1999 and 28.04.2006, respectively

In 2010, the applicant was nominated for promotion to Personal Assistant but sought re-nomination to a location closer to his residence due to medical conditions

Consequently, he was treated as having refused the promotion and was debarred for three select list years

Upon completing 30 years of service on 28.04.2012, the applicant became eligible for the 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme

However, the respondents deferred the grant of this benefit to 03.08.2015, citing the refusal of promotion

The applicant challenged this deferment, alleging hostile discrimination as similarly situated employees in the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation were granted the 3rd MACP without deferment despite their own refusals of promotion

1. Whether the deferment of the applicant’s 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, on account of his refusal to accept promotion, is legally sustainable

2. Whether the denial of the benefit constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

Paragraph 25 of the MACP Scheme, which stipulates that if an employee refuses regular promotion, the next financial upgradation shall be deferred by the period of debarment

Constitutional mandates of Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment), which prohibit hostile discrimination among similarly situated employees

The principle that beneficial schemes intended to mitigate stagnation should not be interpreted as punitive mechanisms

The Tribunal observed that while Para 25 of the MACP Scheme technically allows for the deferment of financial upgradation upon refusal of promotion, its application must be consistent and non-discriminatory.

The record demonstrated that other employees in different departments (Smt. Baljeet Johar and Smt. Jagmohan Kaur Vohra) who also refused promotions were granted the 3rd MACP from their due dates without deferment

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that parity could not be claimed because those employees belonged to different departments, noting that the MACP is a centrally governed scheme applicable uniformly across all Union government departments

The Tribunal found the deferment to be a "retrospective imposition of adverse consequences," as the refusal occurred prior to the accrual of the 3rd MACP entitlement

The court reasoned that converting a beneficial scheme into a punitive tool defeats its objective of mitigating stagnation

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders deferring the financial upgradation and directed the respondents to: (a) grant the 3rd financial upgradation effective from the original due date of 28.04.2012; (b) refix the applicant’s pay and compute all consequential benefits; (c) revise retiral benefits including pension and gratuity; and (d) release all arrears within twelve weeks