Notional Promotion Counted as Regular Service for MACP and NFSG Entitlements

The applicants were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) and subsequently promoted to Upper Division Clerks (UDCs), which was the feeder cadre for promotion to Inspector under the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979.

Due to Cadre Restructuring – 2001, significant vacancies arose in the Inspector cadre prior to December 7, 2002.

Review DPCs in 2011-2012 promoted the applicants to Inspector on a regular basis, effective from July 1, 2001, against regular vacancies, and their pay was fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(i) from this date.

The Apex Court in D. Raghu v. R. Basaveswarudu (CA No. 1970 -75/2009) protected promotions made against vacancies arising before December 7, 2002, citing the passage of time.

The respondents denied or withheld MACP and consequential NFSG benefits citing clarificatory letters dated February 7, 2018, and July 14, 2021, arguing service was not "regular service" for MACP purposes.

Applicant 4's representation dated April 24, 2024, regarding the incorrect MACP date and consequential NFSG benefit remains undecided.

1. Whether the promotions granted to the applicants on or prior to December 6, 2002, which were protected by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 1970 -75/2009 vide order dated February 5, 2020, have attained finality and cannot be disturbed, thereby entitling the applicants to all consequential benefits.

2. Whether the applicants' situation is unaffected by the provisions of the MACP Scheme referred to in the impugned letters/orders dated February 7, 2018, and July 14, 2021.

Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979.

Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme regarding "regular service" requirements.

The doctrine of protection of promotions as established in D. Raghu v. R. Basaveswarudu, (2020) 18 SCC 1, Para 119(22).

Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) regarding pay fixation upon promotion.

The court noted that the regular promotions of the applicants effective from July 1, 2001, were specifically protected by the Apex Court's mandate in the D. Raghu case.

The Tribunal observed that clarificatory letters dated February 7, 2018, and July 14, 2021, used to deny benefits, had already been quashed in O.A. No. 717/2024 for similarly situated employees.

The court recognized that since the applicants were treated as regular Inspectors for seniority and pay fixation since 2001, such service must be counted as "regular service" for the purpose of MACP and subsequent NFSG entitlements.

The respondents were directed to decide the pending representation of applicant 4 and extend the benefits of MACP and NFSG based on the regular service effective from the date of initial promotion.