Ten-year interval between financial upgradations is mandatory for subsequent entitlement under the MACP Scheme.

The applicants, retired Inspectors (Ministerial) of the Delhi Police, were direct recruits as Head Constables in 1986

They received their first promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in 1991/1993, a 2nd MACP in 2008, and a 3rd MACP in 2011/2013

The respondents subsequently sought to withdraw the 3rd MACP, asserting that the applicants had not completed 30 years of regular service nor a 10-year interval from the 2nd MACP

The applicants relied on the Full Bench decision in Manju Vashistha v. Union of India, which granted 3rd MACP after 20 years from the 1st promotion, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court (though the Supreme Court kept the question of law open)

Upon retirement, the respondents withheld the applicants' retiral benefits pending clarification from the DoPT regarding the applicability of the Manju Vashistha judgment

1. Whether a Supreme Court order dismissing an SLP while keeping the "question of law open" constitutes a binding precedent in rem or a judgment in personam.

2. Whether the MACP Scheme envisages a 20-year gap from the first promotion as an entitlement for the 3rd MACP regardless of intervening financial upgradations.

3. Whether a 10-year interval between successive financial upgradations/promotions is a mandatory requirement under the MACP Scheme.

Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme (DoPT OM dated 19.05.2009), which stipulates three financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years of continuous regular service, or 10 years spent continuously in the same grade-pay

M.V. Mohanan Nair v. Union of India, establishing that MACP is an executive policy and courts cannot substitute expert views unless there is clear arbitrariness

State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar and Eminent Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Housing Board, distinguishing between res judicata (operating in personam) and binding precedents (operating in rem)

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) to prohibit recovery of excess payments from retired employees

The Tribunal held that because the Supreme Court kept the question of law open in Manju Vashistha, that judgment operates in personam and does not constitute a binding precedent in rem

Analyzing the MACP Scheme, the Tribunal noted that the primary objective is to alleviate stagnation by requiring 10 years in a single grade; the interpretation that 3rd MACP is due 20 years after the 1st promotion is a "possible" but not necessarily "plausible" interpretation if intervening benefits were received

The Tribunal found that the applicants had received a promotion and a 2nd MACP benefit within their first 22 years of service, thus satisfying the stagnation-removal criteria

Consequently, granting the 3rd MACP after only 3 or 5 years in the previous grade was contrary to the Scheme’s requirement for a 10-year interval

The Tribunal observed that while the withdrawal of the 3rd MACP was technically correct, the respondents’ act of withholding all retiral benefits for DoPT clarification was unjustified

However, it held that as per Rafiq Masih, the respondents cannot recover excess payments made prior to retirement

The Tribunal directed the respondents to: (a) refrain from recovery; (b) refix the applicants' last pay based on the withdrawal of the 3rd MACP; (c) issue revised PPOs and release all withheld pensionary benefits; and (d) pay arrears with simple interest at GPF rates from the date of retirement

The exercise must be completed within eight weeks