Respondents must decide the applicant’s representation through a reasoned, speaking order within eight weeks.

The applicant, an SSE (Works) under Northern Railway, claimed entitlement to the third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme upon completion of 30 years of regular service.

He asserted that he joined service on 11 June 1991 and completed 30 years on 10 June 2021, making him eligible for the third MACP with effect from 11 June 2021.

He relied on the Tribunal’s decision in OA No. 1386/2013, which had granted similar relief to similarly situated employees; that decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 9951/2016 and subsequently attained finality upon dismissal of the related Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court on 18 January 2024.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 20 May 2026 seeking the benefit, but the respondents neither decided it nor communicated any decision.

During the hearing, the applicant limited his prayer to a direction for consideration and disposal of the representation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to claim the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme upon completion of 30 years of regular service, in light of the decisions in OA No. 1386/2013 and the subsequent appellate proceedings.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 20 May 2026 within a stipulated period.

Whether the OA was premature because six months had not elapsed from the date of submission of the representation.

The Tribunal applied the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, under which an eligible government employee may receive a third financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of regular service.

It also relied upon the binding effect and persuasive relevance of the earlier decision in OA No. 1386/2013, which directed grant of third MACP benefits to similarly placed employees, as upheld by the Delhi High Court and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal further applied the principle of administrative fairness requiring the competent authority to consider and decide a pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time.

Since the applicant confined his relief to consideration of the representation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive entitlement to MACP.

The applicant placed before the Tribunal a claim based on 30 years of regular service and relied on judicial decisions concerning similarly situated employees.

Although the respondents argued that the OA was premature because six months had not elapsed from the representation dated 20 May 2026, the applicant agreed to restrict his prayer to a direction for its consideration.

In view of this limited prayer, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to determine the merits of the applicant’s entitlement or the applicability of the earlier MACP judgments to him.

Instead, it directed the respondents to examine the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the claim.

The Tribunal did not grant the third MACP directly and left the applicant’s substantive entitlement open for determination by the respondents.

There was no order as to costs.