Merged or revised pay scales cannot be treated as regular promotions for MACP financial upgradation.

J. Chellan joined All India Radio as an Engineering Assistant in December 1975 and was placed as a Senior Engineering Assistant in July 1984 in the same pay scale. The two posts were subsequently merged. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer in November 1990 and, after implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, was placed in Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of ₹4,800 from 1 January 2006.

The applicant contended that his placement as Senior Engineering Assistant could not be counted as a promotion for MACP purposes because it carried the same pay scale and the two posts were later merged. He further argued that the replacement of his pre-revised scale under the Sixth Pay Commission was only a pay revision and not a financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

The respondents granted him MACP-III by moving him directly from Grade Pay of ₹4,800 in PB-II to Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-III, without granting the alleged intervening MACP-II benefit in PB-II. A revised order issued in 2017 was not accepted by the Pay and Accounts Office, which stated that MACP-III had already been granted.

During the pendency of the OA, J. Chellan died on 26 June 2021. His wife, J. Pushpitha, was substituted as his legal heir to pursue the monetary and consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s placement/promotion as Senior Engineering Assistant, followed by the merger of the Engineering Assistant and Senior Engineering Assistant posts, could be counted as a regular promotion for determining his entitlement to financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.

Whether the replacement of the applicant’s pre-revised pay scale pursuant to the Sixth Central Pay Commission constituted a financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, thereby affecting his entitlement to MACP-II and MACP-III.

Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration or grant of the second and third financial upgradations, with consequential revision of pension and retirement benefits.

The Tribunal applied the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, under which an employee is entitled to three financial upgradations during 30 years of regular service where the employee has not received equivalent progression through regular promotions.

It relied principally on the Principal Bench decision in OA No. 1118 of 2015, decided on 31 March 2016, which held that a change or merger of pay scales arising from pay revision is not itself a financial upgradation, and that merged pay scales cannot be treated as successive promotions for MACP purposes.

The Tribunal also referred to D.S. Rawat and Akashvani & Doordarshan Diploma Engineers Association, including the latter decision’s affirmation by the Patna High Court and dismissal of the related SLP.

The principle in Union of India v. Rafiq Masih was also relied upon to restrain recovery from the employee.

However, the relief was made subject to the final outcome of WP No. 2034/2017, Syamali Biswas, pending before the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s placement as Senior Engineering Assistant and the subsequent merger of the relevant posts to be analogous to the circumstances addressed by the Principal Bench. Since the change in pay scales resulted from pay revision and merger, rather than a genuine advancement to a distinct higher post, it could not be treated as an additional financial upgradation for MACP purposes.

Applying the same reasoning, the Sixth Pay Commission’s replacement of the applicant’s pre-revised scale with PB-II and Grade Pay of ₹4,800 was treated as a corresponding pay revision, not as a MACP benefit. Consequently, the applicant’s MACP entitlement had to be assessed without treating those events as equivalent financial advancements.

The Tribunal therefore followed the Principal Bench view, while recognizing that the legal position was pending consideration before the Delhi High Court in Syamali Biswas.

The OA was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.