Puducherry Tribunal Directs Officials To Consider MACP For Employee Notionally Promoted In 2006 Within 3 Months

The applicant challenged the rejection of his request for service-related benefits, including regularisation of his ad hoc promotion as Grama Sevak Grade-II and consequential pay and MACP benefits.

He had been notionally appointed as Sevak from 14 September 1999 and promoted as Grama Sevak Grade-II from 10 January 2006 following earlier Tribunal proceedings.

He contended that his services had not been regularised despite completion of probation and sought consequential benefits.

At the hearing, his counsel relied on the respondents’ statement in their reply that the applicant’s service book had been sent to the Director of Accounts and Treasuries and that action to grant MACP would be initiated in accordance with the applicable rules.

The Tribunal cited no statute, precedent, or independent legal test.

Its direction was based on the respondents’ statement that the applicant’s MACP claim would be processed in accordance with the MACP Rules.

The Tribunal ordered consideration of that matter within a specified period.

The Tribunal relied on the respondents’ representation that the service book had been forwarded and that action concerning MACP would be initiated under the applicable rules.

It therefore directed the respondents to consider the matter within three months of receiving the order, without determining the applicant’s entitlement to MACP or deciding the other service-benefit claims raised in the OA.

No costs were awarded.