MACP recipients cannot claim duplicate 3% fitment upon AAO appointment through LDCE.

The applicants, who had received financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme, were appointed as Assistant Accounts Officers (AAOs) after qualifying the AAO LDCE-2018.

Their appointment orders referred to pay regulation under F.R. 22(I)(a)(1), and earlier departmental clarifications dated 7 February 2013 and 16 October 2019 had permitted 3% fitment in specified circumstances.

By order dated 26 April 2021, the Department withdrew those clarifications and directed review of cases in which the benefit had been granted to officers who had already received MACP benefits.

The applicants’ representations were rejected on 17 February 2026.

They sought restoration of the 3% fitment and treatment of appointment through LDCE as fresh appointment for MACP purposes.

The Tribunal allowed their application to join in one OA and, after hearing the parties, dismissed the OA.

1. Whether applicants appointed as AAOs through LDCE, after receiving MACP financial upgradation, were entitled to an additional 3% fitment/pay fixation under F.R. 22(I)(a)(1)

2. Whether appointment through LDCE had to be treated as a fresh appointment or direct recruitment, rather than promotion under the applicable AAO Recruitment Rules, for the purpose of determining their entitlement to additional pay fixation

3. Whether the earlier departmental clarifications and appointment-order references created an indefeasible right to the 3% fitment benefit notwithstanding their subsequent withdrawal

The Tribunal applied F.R. 22(I)(a)(1) together with the MACP Scheme under the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 19 May 2009, as amended on 4 July 2017 and consolidated on 22 October 2019; these provisions were to be read harmoniously when determining whether pay fixation had already accompanied a financial upgradation.

It relied on the DoP&T ID Note dated 14 October 2024, which stated that increments on MACP and promotion/NFSG are covered by the same provision and that granting the increment benefit twice could create pay anomalies.

The Tribunal also treated the AAO Recruitment Rules, 2018, which prescribe promotion as the primary recruitment mode, as central to determining the character of appointment through LDCE.

It considered Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India and other LDCE decisions, but held that they did not establish that every LDCE appointment must be treated as direct recruitment or a fresh appointment irrespective of the governing Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal held that an LDCE is a mode of selection, while the legal character of the resulting appointment must be determined from the applicable Recruitment Rules.

Because the AAO Rules prescribe promotion as the primary recruitment mode, appointment through LDCE did not become direct recruitment merely because candidates from different cadres could compete.

The decisions concerning other cadres were distinguishable because they arose under different Recruitment Rules and service structures.

Since the applicants had already received MACP financial upgradation carrying pay fixation under the same provision relied upon for the subsequent AAO appointment, a further identical benefit would duplicate the pay-fixation benefit and risk the anomaly identified by DoP&T.

The earlier departmental clarifications and appointment-order references could not create an indefeasible entitlement contrary to the subsequently clarified applicable instructions.

It upheld the withdrawal of the earlier clarifications and found no legal infirmity in the communication rejecting the applicants’ claim.

The OA was dismissed, with no order as to costs.