Retired Customs Superintendent Gets Third MACP From 2008 As CAT Says His 1978 Selection Grade Could Not Count Toward MACP

The applicant joined the Beas Construction Board (BCB) as a clerk in 1973 and was redeployed to the respondent department as an LDC in 1985. He received a selection grade of Rs. 510–800 with effect from 1 January 1978, was promoted to Superintendent in 2002, and retired in 2015.

In earlier proceedings, the Tribunal directed that he receive two ACP upgradations with effect from 9 August 1999. He later claimed a third MACP financial upgradation with effect from 1 September 2008. The respondents rejected the claim, counting the selection grade as one financial upgradation and the two ACP benefits as the other two.

The applicant challenged that decision, contending that the selection grade arose from cadre restructuring and did not involve promotion, selection, or a change in duties or responsibilities.

1. Whether the applicant’s selection grade of Rs. 510–800, granted with effect from 1 January 1978, could be counted as a financial upgradation for determining his eligibility for a third MACP benefit.

2. Whether, if that selection grade was not countable, the rejection of the applicant’s claim for third MACP and consequential benefits could stand.

The MACP Scheme, introduced by Government of India O.M. dated 19 May 2009 and effective from 1 September 2008, provides for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service, subject to its terms.

Relying on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy, 2011 (9) SCC 510, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India (decided 1 July 2014), the Tribunal applied the principle that placement in a higher pay scale, without a change in post, duties, or responsibilities and without a selection process, is an upgradation simpliciter rather than a promotion.

The Tribunal also considered its earlier decision in the applicant’s case, which found that he had not received a promotion up to 1999 and was entitled to two ACP benefits.

The respondents treated the selection grade as one of the applicant’s three financial upgradations, but the Tribunal found that the label “selection grade” alone did not establish that it was a promotion or countable financial upgradation.

The applicant had specifically asserted that the grade was granted to a percentage of clerical-cadre employees without changed duties, responsibilities, or a selection process; the respondents did not specifically controvert those material assertions.

Applying the principle in Jaswant Singh, the Tribunal held that the selection grade could not be counted for MACP purposes. The respondents’ principal ground for rejecting the third upgradation therefore failed.

It quashed the rejection order dated 25 April 2018 and directed the respondents to grant the third MACP upgradation with effect from 1 September 2008, refix pay, pension, and other retirement benefits, and pay admissible arrears within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs was made.