Placement in a non-functional pay scale does not constitute financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

The 24 applicants, currently serving as Executive Engineers (Civil) in the CPWD, joined as Junior Engineers in 1985–1986

They received their first regular promotion to Assistant Engineer (AE) between 1993 and 2001 and their second regular promotion to Executive Engineer (EE) between 2009 and 2015

During their tenure as AEs, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7500–12000, which was a non-functional scale applicable to 50% of the cadre strength per the 5th CPC recommendations

Upon completing 30 years of service, the applicants sought the 3rd Financial Upgradation under the MACP Scheme (Grade Pay Rs. 7600).

The respondents, via a letter dated 02.04.2018, denied this benefit, contending that the placement in the Rs. 7500–12000 scale constituted a financial upgradation, thereby exhausting the applicants' entitlement to three career advancements

1. Whether the grant of the pay scale of Rs. 7500–12000 to Assistant Engineers in the CPWD constitutes a "placement/non-functional scale" or a "financial upgradation/promotion" for the purposes of the MACP Scheme?

2. Whether the respondents are justified in counting the non-functional scale of Rs. 7500–12000 as a financial upgradation to deny the 3rd MACP benefit?

3. Whether the denial of the 3rd Financial Upgradation is arbitrary and discriminatory in light of similar benefits granted to other officers?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled to the 3rd MACP in Grade Pay Rs. 7600 upon completion of 30 years of regular service?

The court primarily relied on the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009, which mandates three financial upgradations at 10, 20, and 30 years of service

the binding precedent of F.C. Jain v. Union of India, where the Tribunal, Delhi High Court, and Supreme Court held that the Rs. 7500–12000 scale for CPWD AEs is a "placement" and not a financial upgradation

The court invoked the principle of judicial discipline from Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., asserting that departmental authorities are bound by higher judicial forums

the rule from Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules or settled law

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding non-arbitrariness and parity, citing State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha

The Tribunal noted that the character of the Rs. 7500–12000 scale was no longer res integra due to the F.C. Jain litigation, which explicitly classified it as a "placement" scale

Consequently, this placement cannot be counted as an "upgradation" under the MACP Scheme.

The court observed that the applicants had only received two regular promotions (AE and EE) in their 30-year career

The respondents' attempt to count the non-functional scale as a third advancement was deemed a violation of judicial discipline and their own prior clarification dated 31.10.2013, which admitted that the scale was a "replacement scale" and not a promotion

the court found the respondents' action discriminatory, as similarly situated officers had already been granted the 3rd MACP despite having received the same non-functional scale

The court concluded that administrative instructions or DoP&T advice cannot override binding judicial precedents that have attained finality

The court quashed the impugned order dated 02.04.2018

It directed the respondents to consider and grant the 3rd Financial Upgradation in the pay scale of Rs. 15600–39100 with Grade Pay Rs. 7600 from the date each applicant completed 30 years of service

The respondents were ordered to comply within four weeks of receiving the order

No costs were awarded