MACP entitlement at higher pay band and grade pay based on OM.

The applicant, Devasia M., was a former Binder Grade-I at the Government of India Press, Koratty.

He commenced service as a Labourer on October 4, 1983.

After completing 30 years of service, he was granted the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) in the post of Highly Skilled Worker Grade-1, with a Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 and a Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, effective October 4, 2012.

He contended that the next higher Pay Band applicable to him should be Rs. 9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-.

The applicant made a representation seeking a declaration that he was entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of service in the Scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and consequential fixation under FR 22 (1) (a) (i).

During the pendency of the Original Application, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Directorate of Printing, issued Annexure-R15 OM dated September 22, 2025.

Subsequently, the applicant submitted Annexure R16 representation to the 5th respondent, seeking re-fixation of his pay in Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- in accordance with FR 22 (1) (a) (I) with effect from November 1, 2012, and a revision of his pension from November 1, 2013.

The 5th respondent filed an additional reply statement on November 18, 2025, acknowledging the representation and OM No. 60/16/2009/A-IV(Pt.2) dated September 22, 2025.

They stated their decision to revise the applicant's pay and pension in terms of the OM and to pay any arrears.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of service in the Scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, and consequential fixation under FR 22 (1) (a) (i).

Whether the respondents were obligated to revise the applicant's pay and pension in light of OM No. 60/16/2009/A-IV(Pt.2) dated September 22, 2025.

The court primarily applied the principles of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme, which provides for financial upgradation on completion of specific years of service.

The court also referenced FR 22 (1) (a) (i) concerning pay fixation.

The core basis for the resolution was the Office Memorandum No. 60/16/2009/A-IV(Pt.2) dated September 22, 2025, issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Directorate of Printing, which apparently addressed the re-fixation of pay and pension for employees in situations similar to the applicant's.

The applicant's initial claim sought a specific higher Pay Band and Grade Pay under the 3rd MACP scheme and FR 22 (1) (a) (i).

The case progressed based on a subsequent development: the issuance of OM No. 60/16/2009/A-IV(Pt.2) dated September 22, 2025, by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.

Crucially, the 5th respondent, through an additional reply statement, explicitly acknowledged this OM and informed the Tribunal of their decision to revise the applicant's pay and pension in accordance with its terms.

This admission by the respondents effectively resolved the dispute, as they agreed to provide the relief sought by the applicant by applying the relevant OM.

The Tribunal, therefore, found it appropriate to dispose of the application based on this revised stance from the respondents.

The court directed the respondents to revise the applicant's pay and pension in terms of the Office Memorandum No. 60/16/2009/A-IV(Pt.2) dated September 22, 2025.

It further directed that all other retiral benefits flowing from this re-fixation be worked out and paid to the applicant within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order, with an interest rate of 9% per annum applicable if payment extends beyond 90 days.

There were no costs awarded.