MACP financial upgradation follows the standard grade-pay hierarchy, not the cadre’s promotional hierarchy.

The applicants, industrial employees of the Ordnance Clothing Factory, had received two financial upgradations under the erstwhile ACP Scheme and, on completing 30 years of service, were initially granted a third financial upgradation with Grade Pay of ₹4,600 between May and July 2012.

The respondents later reduced the Grade Pay to ₹4,200, stating that the applicants did not qualify for ₹4,600 under the applicable clarifications and MACP provisions.

The applicants challenged the reduction and sought restoration of ₹4,600 with consequential benefits.

The respondents also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair and the subsequent DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 23 March 2020.

1. Whether the applicants’ third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme entitled them to Grade Pay of ₹4,600 on the basis of their cadre’s promotional hierarchy, rather than the standard Grade Pay hierarchy prescribed by the Scheme.

2. Whether the respondents’ reduction of the applicants’ Grade Pay from ₹4,600 to ₹4,200 warranted interference, given the applicants’ prior grant of ₹4,600 and their challenge to the retrospective application of departmental clarifications.

The MACP Scheme, introduced by DoP&T Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19 May 2009, provides financial upgradations after 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service; under paragraph 2, each upgradation is to the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the prescribed standard hierarchy, not necessarily the Grade Pay attached to the next promotional post.

In Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020, decided 5 March 2020, the Supreme Court held that MACP benefits are determined by the standard Grade Pay hierarchy, distinguishing MACP from the erstwhile ACP Scheme, which was linked to the promotional hierarchy.

A benefit initially granted contrary to the governing Scheme does not, merely through its prior grant, create an enforceable right to retain it.

The Tribunal held that even if the applicants’ placements following cadre restructuring did not amount to regular promotions, that circumstance did not entitle them to the Grade Pay attached to the next promotional post under MACP; their entitlement remained governed by the standard Grade Pay hierarchy.

The applicants also failed to establish that they had reached the ₹5,000–8,000 pay scale (Chargeman level) under the erstwhile ACP Scheme by 31 December 2005, the category identified by the respondents as eligible for the claimed ₹4,600 Grade Pay.

The Tribunal found that neither earlier Tribunal decisions, alleged parity with other employees, nor the prior grant of ₹4,600 displaced the MACP provisions and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

It dismissed the Original Application, declined to interfere with the reduction to ₹4,200, and made no order as to costs.