Facts
The applicants joined the National Test House (NTH) as Scientist-B (Level-10) in 2000
Source reference: p.2They received two promotions via the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS), reaching Scientist-D (Level-12) by 2012
Source reference: p.3Upon completing 10 years of service as Scientist-D on 06.03.2022, they applied for the 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme to Level-13
Source reference: p.3, 8The respondents rejected the claim via an impugned order dated 20.06.2024, arguing that NTH lacks a "Scientist-E" post (Level-13) and that a new DoP&T OM dated 13.03.2024 required candidates to fail FCS assessment for three years to qualify for MACP—a condition the applicants did not meet
Source reference: p.6, 9, 10Issues
1. Whether the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP from Level-12 to Level-13 can be denied solely due to the non-existence of a specific promotional post (Scientist-E) in the organizational hierarchy
Source reference: p.8, para. 112. Whether the revised eligibility conditions introduced by the DoP&T OM dated 13.03.2024 can be applied retrospectively to deny benefits that accrued in 2022
Source reference: p.16, para. 20Law Applied
Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme (DoP&T OM dated 19.05.2009), which establishes financial upgradation as a pay-level linked welfare measure to mitigate stagnation, rather than a post-linked promotional scheme
Source reference: p.9The principle from Union of India v. S.K. Dubey that career progression schemes must be interpreted to fulfill their remedial purpose
Source reference: p.9, para. 13The doctrine of lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel the impossible) regarding eligibility criteria
Source reference: p.17, para. 21The constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14 to prevent "hostile discrimination" between identically placed employees across different departments
Source reference: p.15, para. 19Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that MACP is distinct from regular promotion and depends on the existence of a higher Pay Level, not a specific post; since the post of "Director" in NTH exists at Level-13, the requirement for a higher level was met
Source reference: p.12, para. 16The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on the OM dated 13.03.2024, noting that the applicants’ rights crystallized on 06.03.2022, whereas the OM explicitly stated it was effective from 01.07.2024
Source reference: p.16, para. 20Applying restrictive criteria retrospectively to extinguish vested rights was deemed legally unsustainable
Source reference: p.16Furthermore, because NTH does not offer FCS assessments beyond Scientist-D, the requirement to "fail" such an assessment for three years was an "impossible standard"
Source reference: p.17, para. 21The Tribunal noted that the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) granted identical benefits under similar rules, making the denial at NTH discriminatory under Article 14
Source reference: p.15, para. 19Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicants are entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme to Pay Level-13 effective from 06.03.2022
The Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed the impugned order dated 20.06.2024. The respondents were directed to consider the applicants for the upgradation in light of precedents (Kedar Nath Mishra v. Consumer Affairs and others) and release all consequential monetary benefits within three months. No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.19, para. 23; p.20, para. 24Original Court PDF
Rakesh SainivsCOMMERCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in