MACP cannot be withheld for vigilance proceedings absent a charge-sheet on the eligibility date.

The applicant entered regular service as an Inspector of Posts on 31 December 2010 and later joined as an Inspector of Central Excise on 17 September 2012.

He sought first financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800, with effect from 31 December 2020.

The respondents relied on a retrospective Grade Pay revision in his former department and stated that vigilance proceedings, his suspension from 25 March 2021, and a charge memorandum issued on 9 July 2024 prevented consideration of his claim.

They also raised a territorial-jurisdiction objection, stating that the applicant had been relieved to report to his parent zone in Kerala in July 2024.

The applicant maintained that no suspension or charge-sheet was pending on the date he became eligible for MACP.

Whether the applicant was entitled to first financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800 with effect from 31 December 2020.

Whether the respondents could withhold consideration of that upgradation on vigilance or disciplinary grounds when no suspension or charge-sheet was pending on the applicant’s eligibility date.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, which holds that promotion-related benefits cannot be withheld merely because disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending; for denial on that basis, a charge memorandum or charge-sheet must have been issued by the relevant time.

It also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in OA No. 94/2013, which applied a Department of Posts clarification that officials facing disciplinary action on the actual due date of upgradation may not be considered for MACP.

The Tribunal’s ruling applies these principles to MACP eligibility as of the date the benefit fell due.

The Tribunal found that, on 31 December 2020—the date the applicant claimed his first MACP was due—no disciplinary proceeding, charge-sheet, or suspension was pending against him.

It therefore rejected the respondents’ contention that the applicant was not free from vigilance angle as insufficient to deny the benefit, applying Jankiraman and the coordinate Bench’s MACP ruling.

Although the respondents raised a territorial-jurisdiction objection based on the applicant’s later transfer, the order does not separately analyse that objection.

No costs were awarded.