MACP does not mandate ₹6,600 grade pay where ₹5,400 in PB-2 and PB-3 are distinct.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Engineer of the Central Ground Water Board, challenged Office Order dated 25.11.2016 granting him third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400, instead of ₹6,600.

He had earlier been granted second financial upgradation in PB-2 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400 with effect from 01.09.2008, and the impugned third upgradation in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400 with effect from 31.07.2015.

The respondents relied on paragraph 8.1 of Annexure-I to the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009, which treats Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-2 and PB-3 as separate Grade Pays for MACP purposes.

The respondents also relied on G.P. Soti v. Principal, Deen Dayal Upadhyay College & Ors. , W.P. (C) No. 10133/2015, decided by the Delhi High Court on 05.11.2024, and The Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors. , Civil Appeal No. 442 of 2022, decided by the Supreme Court on 28.01.2022.

Whether the applicant was entitled to Grade Pay of ₹6,600, rather than ₹5,400, on his third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme because he had already received Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-2.

Whether Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-2 and Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-3 were required to be treated as separate Grade Pays under paragraph 8.1 of the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009.

Whether the applicant could obtain relief without specifically challenging paragraph 8.1 of Annexure-I to the MACP Scheme.

The Tribunal applied paragraph 8.1 of Annexure-I to the MACP Scheme contained in the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, which expressly provides that Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-2 and Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-3 are separate Grade Pays for granting financial upgradations.

It also relied on Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, concerning the hierarchy of revised Pay Bands and Grade Pays.

Following G.P. Soti , the Tribunal held that movement from PB-2 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400 to PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400 constitutes the next higher financial upgradation because the Pay Band changes.

Following The Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. K. Sudheesh Kumar , it held that so long as paragraph 8.1 and the prescribed Grade Pay hierarchy remain unchallenged, entitlement must be determined in accordance with the MACP Scheme; any alleged anomaly must be challenged separately.

The Tribunal also referred to the principle in M.V. Mohanan Nair that an employee is entitled to the higher Grade Pay provided under the applicable MACP framework.

The applicant’s claim treated the numerical repetition of Grade Pay ₹5,400 as proof that the next financial upgradation had to carry Grade Pay ₹6,600.

The Tribunal rejected that approach because the two instances of ₹5,400 occurred in different Pay Bands—PB-2 and PB-3—and paragraph 8.1 expressly treats them as separate Grade Pays.

Accordingly, the applicant’s second upgradation from PB-2/₹5,400 to PB-3/₹5,400 represented movement to the next level in the prescribed Pay Band and Grade Pay hierarchy.

Since the applicant had not challenged paragraph 8.1 of the MACP Scheme, the Tribunal held that it could not grant relief contrary to that provision.

The reasoning in G.P. Soti and K. Sudheesh Kumar directly governed the dispute and supported the respondents’ interpretation.

Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-2 and PB-3 was required to be treated as separate Grade Pays, and the impugned order granting third financial upgradation in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400 was consistent with paragraph 8.1 of the MACP Scheme.

The Original Application was dismissed as misconceived, with no order as to costs.