Subsequent merger of promotional posts requires ignoring the earlier promotion for MACP purposes.

The Petitioner joined India Government Mint, Noida, as Assistant Grade-II in 1988 and was regularly promoted as Assistant Grade-I with effect from 22 August 1995.

After the Fifth Central Pay Commission, Assistant Grade-I and Junior Technician carried the same pay scale of ₹4,000–6,000, although they remained separate posts in the promotional hierarchy.

The Petitioner was promoted from Assistant Grade-I to Junior Technician on 3 January 2003 and received pay-fixation benefits.

With effect from 1 January 2006, the two posts were retrospectively merged and redesignated as Junior Technician in Grade Pay ₹2,400.

Under the MACPS, the Respondents counted the Petitioner’s 2003 promotion as his second promotion and denied him the second financial upgradation.

Two of his juniors, who had not been promoted to Junior Technician before the merger, were granted the second MACP in Grade Pay ₹2,800 from 1 September 2008.

DoPT advised that the Petitioner’s case be examined on the analogy of paragraph 5 of Annexure-I to the MACP Scheme, since the posts had subsequently merged and the earlier promotion had placed him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis his juniors.

SPMCIL nevertheless rejected his claim on 15 January 2019, principally relying on paragraphs 8 and 10 of the MACP Scheme and the fact that the 2003 promotion was made under the applicable Recruitment Rules and carried fixation benefits.

Whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution when the Petitioner served at Noida but the impugned decision was taken by SPM斲IL’s Corporate Office in New Delhi?

Whether the Petitioner’s promotion from Assistant Grade-I to Junior Technician on 3 January 2003 was required to be ignored while computing his MACP entitlement, because the two posts were subsequently merged with effect from 1 January 2006?

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the second financial upgradation under MACPS in Grade Pay ₹2,800 with effect from 1 September 2008, notwithstanding the Respondents’ reliance on the prohibition against stepping-up of pay and reopening of past cases?

Article 226(2) permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where a material or integral part of the cause of action arises within its territory; the situs where the impugned order is passed may constitute such a part of the cause of action, subject to forum conveniens principles under Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.

Under paragraphs 5 and 8 of Annexure-I to the MACP Scheme, promotions in the same Grade Pay which remain movements through distinct posts in the promotional hierarchy are ordinarily counted, but past promotions or upgradations may be ignored where the relevant grades have subsequently been merged; paragraph 5 alters the reckoning of a valid past promotion without invalidating the promotion itself.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Harbans Lal Verma, which distinguishes promotions that remain countable under paragraph 8 from movements rendered liable to exclusion under paragraph 5 following merger, and also considered Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. S.K. Saraswat, Prabhakar Rao Thanikonda v. Export Inspection Council and Union of India v. Shalini Naagi on merger and MACP computation.

DoPT’s interpretation of the MACP Scheme is authoritative for the authorities administering it, as recognised in Harbans Lal Verma and Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair.

Paragraph 10 does not bar a claim founded on the correct application of the MACP Scheme merely because juniors received higher Grade Pay, and paragraph 11 does not prevent determining the prospective financial consequences of a past promotion without disturbing the promotion itself.

The Court held that the 2003 movement was undeniably a promotion when made because Assistant Grade-I and Junior Technician were then distinct posts under the Recruitment Rules and the Petitioner received fixation benefits.

However, the decisive question was its treatment under MACPS after the two posts had been merged retrospectively into a single post from 1 January 2006.

By the time MACPS commenced on 1 September 2008, the promotional levels between which the Petitioner had moved no longer existed as separate grades.

Accordingly, paragraph 8 did not conclusively require the promotion to be counted; paragraph 5 applied to the effect of the subsequent merger.

The illustration to paragraph 5, referring to particular pre-revised scales, was not exhaustive, especially since DoPT had examined the Petitioner’s precise case involving the common ₹4,000–6,000 scale and advised consideration on the analogy of paragraph 5.

The fixation benefit confirmed the original promotional character of the movement but did not prevent its exclusion for the limited purpose of MACP computation.

The claim was therefore based on the proper application of MACP, not on impermissible stepping-up merely because juniors received higher pay.

On merits, it held that the Petitioner’s promotion from Assistant Grade-I to Junior Technician dated 3 January 2003 must be ignored solely for computing his MACP entitlement because the two posts were subsequently merged with effect from 1 January 2006; the promotion and benefits already earned from it otherwise remained unaffected.

The rejection order dated 15 January 2019 and consequential communication dated 22 January 2019 were set aside.

The Respondents were directed to grant the Petitioner the second MACP in Grade Pay ₹2,800 with effect from 1 September 2008, re-fix his pay, revise his pro-rata pension and subsequent pension revisions, account for the Grade Pay ₹2,800 already granted from 1 November 2008, and issue the necessary orders within eight weeks, with arrears to be released within four weeks thereafter.