Selection grade after eight years entitles employees to second and third MACPs at 18 and 28 years.

The applicant was initially engaged on muster-roll basis on 21 February 1983 and was appointed as a regular work-charged employee with the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) from 19 September 1989.

He was initially granted the first ACP benefit from 19 September 2004, which was subsequently antedated to 19 September 2001.

The respondents granted him the second MACP from 19 September 2009.

In 2018, the DDA decided to grant selection grade to erstwhile Mates/OCMs after eight years of service, on the analogy of CPWD.

Consequentially, the applicant’s earlier first ACP granted from 19 September 2001 was withdrawn through refixation of pay by order dated 30 June 2018.

The applicant retired on 31 May 2019 and thereafter sought grant of the third MACP.

His claim was rejected by the respondents on 10 August 2020.

He consequently filed the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking revision of the second and third MACP benefits and consequential pay and pensionary benefits.

Whether the applicant’s second MACP was correctly granted from 19 September 2009, or whether it was payable from 1 September 2008 under the MACP Scheme dated 19 May 2009?

Whether, after receiving selection grade on completion of eight years of service, the applicant was entitled to the third MACP after completion of 28 years of regular service, notwithstanding that he retired before completing 30 years of service?

Whether the withdrawal of the first ACP benefit and the consequential refixation order dated 30 June 2018 were legally sustainable?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing applications before the Tribunal.

It relied principally on the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 19 May 2009 introducing the MACP Scheme.

Clause 9 made the Scheme operational from 1 September 2008 and provided that benefits under the earlier ACP Scheme would be granted only up to 31 August 2008.

The illustration under Clause 28 recognised that where an employee received a financial upgradation after eight years, the next upgradation would become due after ten years in the upgraded scale and the third upgradation after a further ten years, resulting in financial upgradations after 18 and 28 years of service respectively.

The Tribunal also considered the Full Bench decision in Manju Vashistha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., OA No.1288/2014, which had been upheld by the Delhi High Court, although it held that the facts of that case were distinguishable.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s selection grade from 19 September 1997 constituted the relevant earlier financial upgradation.

Since he had completed ten years in that upgraded scale by 18 September 2007, the second financial upgradation became due under the MACP framework upon its operationalisation from 1 September 2008.

Granting the second MACP only from 19 September 2009 was therefore contrary to Clause 9 of the DoP&T OM.

Applying the illustration under Clause 28, the Tribunal further held that the applicant was entitled to the third financial upgradation after completing 28 years of regular service, calculated from the date of his initial regular appointment and taking into account the selection grade granted after eight years.

The respondents’ reliance on the ordinary 10/20/30-year MACP structure was rejected because the applicant’s case involved a prior selection-grade upgradation in the same manner contemplated by the illustration.

As to the first ACP, the Tribunal found no irregularity in its withdrawal because the applicant had already received selection grade from 19 September 1997 and was not entitled to an additional ACP benefit for the same period.

The applicant also did not press this challenge during final arguments.

However, the Tribunal found the refusal of the third MACP and the date assigned to the second MACP legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal quashed the grant of the second financial upgradation from 19 September 2009 as reflected in the order dated 30 June 2018 and quashed the respondents’ order dated 10 August 2020 rejecting the claim for the third MACP.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant the second MACP from 1 September 2008 and the third MACP from 19 September 2017, and to complete the exercise within eight weeks from receipt of the certified order.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.