MACP requires 10 years in a grade for next financial upgradation; not blanket 28 years.

The applicant, Sidh Raj Singh, joined the respondents as a plumber on daily wages on September 19, 1980, with his service regularized on August 11, 1986.

He was granted selection grade after 8 years of service on August 11, 1994, and subsequently, 2nd MACP with effect from September 1, 2008.

He was granted 3rd MACP with effect from August 11, 2014, and retired on January 31, 2015.

However, the Pay and Accounts Office (PAO) denied his eligibility for 3rd MACP via orders dated April 7, 2015, and May 21, 2015, stating it was due only on August 11, 2016, and he had not completed 10 years of service in the GP of Rs. 2800.

The applicant filed the present OA challenging this denial.

The applicant relies on a DOP&T OM dated May 19, 2009, and a clarification letter from Dy. Director (Admn)-IV, CPWD, dated July 1, 2016, which suggested eligibility for 2nd and 3rd MACP after 18 and 28 years respectively, even if the first upgradation occurred after 8 years.

The respondents contend that the CPWD's clarification is a misinterpretation of the MACP Scheme, which mandates upgradations at intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years of continuous regular service.

Whether the applicant was erroneously denied benefits under the 3rd MACP Scheme by the respondents.

Whether the letters dated April 7, 2015, and May 21, 2015, denying the 3rd MACP to the applicant, should be set aside.

Whether the respondents should be directed to disburse pension amount as calculated after granting benefits of 3rd MACP Scheme on grade pay of Rs. 4200 without any deduction.

The court primarily applied the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), introduced by the Government of India through DOP&T OM dated May 19, 2009.

Specifically, it referred to paragraph 2 of the OM, which states that three financial upgradations are granted under MACPS at intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years of continuous regular service.

The court also considered Clause 28 A(i) and (ii) of the DOP&T OM, which provides illustrations for financial upgradations, particularly stating that if a first promotion occurs after 8 years, the second is due after 18 years, and the third after 28 years.

The court also differentiated the instant case from previous judgments such as *Balister Singh Yadav vs. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and another*, *Ram Das vs. UOI*, and *Kewal Singh vs. Union of India & ors.*, finding them to have factual variances.

The court analyzed the applicant's eligibility based on the MACP Scheme.

It noted that while the applicant received his first financial upgradation (selection grade) after 8 years in 1994, his second financial upgradation was granted in 2008, two years later than it would have been under the earlier ACP scheme (12 years from 1994, i.e., 2006).

The court emphasized that the MACP Scheme's core principle is financial upgradation after 10 years in a particular pay level without promotion, reaching up to Level 15.

It found that illustrations in Clause 28 A(i) and (ii) of the DOP&T OM dated May 19, 2009, indicating 2nd and 3rd upgradations after 18 and 28 years respectively, are to be applied in the context of spending 10 years in each financially upgraded level, not as a blanket rule irrespective of delays or postponements.

The court reasoned that the Dy. Director (Admn)-IV, CPWD's clarification letter dated July 1, 2016, was a misinterpretation of the MACP guidelines, as it disregarded the delay in the applicant's second financial upgradation.

Since the applicant's second financial upgradation was granted in 2008, he would normally be entitled to the third financial upgradation after 10 years from 2008, i.e., in 2018 (if he were in service).

As the applicant retired in 2015, he had only completed 7 years since his second financial upgradation in 2008, and therefore, was not eligible for the 3rd MACP which was granted in 2014, making it erroneous.

The court distinguished the cited precedents by the applicant's counsel on the grounds of factual variance.

The applicant was not entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme in 2014, as he had not completed 10 years of service since his 2nd financial upgradation in 2008.

The PAO office had rightly concluded that the 3rd financial upgradation granted in 2014 was incorrect.

Consequently, the OA was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.