Pendency of a writ petition cannot, by itself, justify denying an employee’s MACP claim.

Ram Singh Rathore, a railway employee, sought grant of the 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme.

The Senior Personnel Officer/Construction, North Central Railway, rejected the claim by order dated 2 March 2026, inter alia relying on the pendency of a writ petition and related departmental communications

In the Original Application, the Tribunal quashed the rejection order and directed the General Manager, North Central Railway, to reconsider Rathore’s entitlement on the basis of his service record and the MACP Scheme and to pass a reasoned order within three months

The Union of India and other railway authorities filed the present Review Application seeking modification of that direction.

They contended that Rathore held lien with Northern Railway and that his lien and complete service record were maintained there; consequently, the competent authority, rather than specifically the General Manager, North Central Railway, should consider the claim

Rathore opposed the modification, arguing that his 1st and 2nd MACP benefits had been considered by North Central Railway and that the 3rd MACP claim should likewise be decided by it.

1. Whether the direction requiring the General Manager, North Central Railway, to reconsider the claim for 3rd MACP required modification so that the claim could be considered by the legally competent authority, having regard to the employee’s lien and service records.

2. Whether the pendency of a writ petition could, by itself, justify denial of the employee’s claim for 3rd MACP.

The Tribunal applied the principles governing consideration of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and the requirement that such entitlement be examined by the competent authority on the basis of the employee’s service record and the relevant scheme provisions

It further held that pendency of a writ petition, without more, cannot constitute a sufficient basis for denying an otherwise examinable MACP claim; where the authority receiving the claim is not competent to decide it, the matter must be referred to the appropriate competent authority

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order

The Tribunal accepted that the earlier direction had to be adjusted in light of the review applicants’ limited grievance concerning the identity of the decision-making authority.

Since Rathore’s lien and service record were stated to be maintained by Northern Railway, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct consideration by the competent authority rather than retain an inflexible direction to the General Manager, North Central Railway

At the same time, the Tribunal rejected the respondents’ reliance on the pending writ petition as an independent ground for refusing consideration of the 3rd MACP claim.

The competent authority was required either to decide the matter itself, if authorised, or refer it to the appropriate authority, after examining the service record and applying the MACP Scheme

That examination was to be undertaken in accordance with law, on the basis of his service record and the relevant provisions of the MACP Scheme

The Tribunal did not itself grant the 3rd MACP, but required a lawful and reasoned consideration of the claim; the pendency of the writ petition could not, by itself, justify its rejection