Selection-based appointments cannot be mechanically counted as promotions under MACPS.

The applicant entered Railway service as a Casual Khalasi in 1985, was absorbed as a Dak Khalasi in 1987, and thereafter secured appointments as Accounts Clerk, Junior Accounts Assistant and Accounts Assistant through departmental selection/LDCE processes, the last effective from 23 November 1996.

He received no further promotion after that date.

Claiming that he had completed 10 and 20 years at the same level, he sought MACP financial upgradations effective from 23 November 2006 and 23 November 2016.

The respondents rejected his claim on the ground that he had already earned three promotions; they also objected to the application as time-barred.

Whether the applicant’s appointments to higher posts through departmental selection/LDCE could be counted as promotions for determining his entitlement to financial upgradations under the MACPS.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the MACP claim solely on the basis that the applicant had earned three promotions could be sustained.

The MACPS provides financial upgradations in accordance with the applicable qualifying-service and scheme conditions; under the Railway Board’s RBE No. 101/2009 and RBE No. 143/2010, three countable promotions may preclude a further MACP upgradation.

The Tribunal distinguished routine promotion based on seniority-cum-fitness from appointment to a higher post after a competitive selection or LDCE, holding that the nature and mode of advancement must be examined before it is counted under the MACPS.

It relied on Union of India v. D. Sivakumar, which treated selection-based appointment to a higher post as distinct from a MACP upgradation.

It noted that the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India v. E. Sreeramulu dismissed the connected matters while leaving the question of law open and did not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141.

The respondents treated the applicant’s three advancements as countable promotions without addressing how he obtained the posts.

The record showed that the applicant had entered the higher posts after participating in and qualifying through selection/LDCE processes; the respondents did not establish that these were routine seniority-based promotions.

Applying the distinction recognized in D. Sivakumar, the Tribunal held that the advancements could not be mechanically counted as MACP financial upgradations merely because they carried higher designations or pay scales.

Since the applicant had received no further regular promotion after 23 November 1996, the respondents were required to reassess his qualifying service and entitlement under the scheme.

It directed the respondents to recompute the applicant’s MACP entitlement, counting only advancements legally countable under the scheme, and to determine whether the claimed and subsequent upgradations were due, with consequential benefits.

The exercise was to be completed within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal made no order as to costs.