Pharmacists’ two-year financial upgradation must be counted while determining subsequent MACP benefits.

The applicants, retired Pharmacists of the Southern Railway, challenged the denial of the third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) in Grade Pay (GP) of ₹5,400.

The Pharmacist cadre had been restructured, and Pharmacists appointed in GP ₹2,800 were placed in GP ₹4,200 after completion of the prescribed period of service.

They contended that this placement was non-functional and could not be counted as a promotion or financial upgradation for MACPS purposes.

The respondents contended that the placement in GP ₹4,200 after two years constituted a financial upgradation which had to be counted under the MACPS, and relied principally upon Union of India v. N.M. Raut & Ors. , 2024 INSC 1042.

Whether the placement of Pharmacists from GP ₹2,800 to GP ₹4,200 upon completion of two years of regular service constituted a financial upgradation for the purposes of the MACPS

Whether such placement was required to be counted while determining the applicants’ entitlement to subsequent MACP benefits, including the third MACP in GP ₹5,400

The Tribunal applied Clauses 1, 2, 5, 13, 19 and 20 of the MACPS.

Clause 1 provides for three financial upgradations after 10, 20 and 30 years of service, while Clause 13 prohibits the simultaneous operation of the MACPS and existing time-bound or in-situ promotion schemes.

The Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India & Ors. v. N.M. Raut & Ors. , 2024 INSC 1042, which held that financial upgradations granted to Pharmacists or Superintendents after two or four years under the applicable Revised Pay Rules could not be ignored and had to be counted for determining entitlement under the MACPS.

The governing principle was that promotions and all financial upgradations already received under the Revised Pay Rules must be accounted for while calculating the three financial upgradations and the relevant 10-year intervals under the MACPS.

The Tribunal held that the applicants’ placement in GP ₹4,200 after completion of the prescribed period was a financial upgradation, irrespective of whether it was described as non-functional or did not involve a functional promotion.

Applying N.M. Raut , the Tribunal reasoned that the MACPS and financial benefits under the Revised Pay Rules were not independent schemes operating in separate compartments.

Ignoring the GP ₹4,200 placement would confer an additional financial benefit not contemplated by the MACPS and would defeat Clause 13, which prevents employees from receiving both the benefit of an existing time-bound/in-situ scheme and the MACPS for the same service period.

Since the applicants had already received the GP ₹4,200 placement and other financial upgradations, those benefits had to be counted in determining their MACPS entitlement.

It held that the placement from GP ₹2,800 to GP ₹4,200 upon completion of the prescribed service period was liable to be counted as a financial upgradation under the MACPS.

Consequently, the applicants had already availed three financial upgradations and were not entitled to a further third MACP in GP ₹5,400.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.