Refusal of promotion defers the next MACP only for the prescribed debarment period.

The applicant joined the Department of Posts as a Postal Assistant on 04.10.1997 and received her first financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008.

She was offered regular promotion to the LSG cadre by memorandum dated 22.03.2017, which she declined on 18.04.2017. Consequently, she was debarred for one year, up to 17.04.2018.

She ultimately joined the LSG post at Gopalpur S.O. on 14.08.2021, and was granted the second MACP with effect from 15.08.2021.

Her representation seeking the benefit from 18.04.2018 was rejected on 23.03.2022. She challenged the rejection and the order granting MACP from 15.08.2021 before the Tribunal.

Whether an employee who had already received the first financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and thereafter declined regular promotion could be denied the second MACP beyond the one-year debarment period.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the second financial upgradation under MACP with effect from 18.04.2018, notwithstanding her subsequent promotion to the LSG cadre in 2021.

The Tribunal applied the DoP&T’s promotion-debarment instructions contained in O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989, under which an employee refusing regular promotion is ordinarily debarred from further consideration for promotion for one year.

It applied the MACP Scheme introduced through DoP&T O.M. No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009, under which financial upgradations are governed by the conditions applicable to regular promotion but are not dependent on vacancies or reservation rosters.

Relying on paragraph 30 of the DoP&T O.M. dated 21.11.2022, the Tribunal held that where an employee has already obtained a financial upgradation due to stagnation and subsequently refuses promotion, the earlier benefit is not withdrawn; the next financial upgradation is deferred only for the period of debarment, and becomes available when the employee agrees to be considered for promotion again.

The Tribunal also considered paragraph 24 of the Directorate’s MACP clarification dated 30.10.2019 and the coordinate Bench decision in Nagendra G v. Department of Posts, O.A. No. 248 of 2024, decided on 10.11.2025.

The applicant had already earned the first MACP before declining the LSG promotion; therefore, the refusal could not retrospectively extinguish that benefit.

Under the applicable MACP principle, the consequence of refusal was limited to postponement of the next financial upgradation for the one-year debarment period.

Since the applicant declined promotion on 18.04.2017, the debarment expired on 17.04.2018.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ interpretation that the applicant remained ineligible for MACP until her eventual acceptance of promotion in 2021.

It held that, once the debarment period ended and before the applicant’s subsequent promotion, the second MACP became payable, subject to the other eligibility conditions.

The later promotion and joining in the LSG cadre could not justify postponing the MACP from 18.04.2018 to 15.08.2021.

The orders dated 30.11.2021 and 23.03.2022 were quashed.

The respondents were directed to issue consequential orders and extend all consequential benefits within 90 days from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

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