Third MACP benefits cannot be denied to similarly situated employees solely for non-participation in earlier litigation.

The applicant, a retired Store Keeper-II, initially served in the Beas Construction Board (BCB) and was redeployed to the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) in 1985, with protection of pay and service-related benefits.

His service in the BCB was subsequently treated as qualifying service for ACP purposes pursuant to prior Tribunal and High Court decisions concerning similarly situated ex-BCB employees.

The applicant claimed entitlement to the first and second ACP in the scales of Rs. 5,500–9,000 and Rs. 6,500–10,500, respectively, and to the third MACP in PB-2, Rs. 9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 with effect from 1 September 2008.

Although the respondents extended certain earlier ACP benefits to him, they granted the third financial upgradation only with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800 and denied Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400.

The applicant relied on orders granting the Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 to similarly situated ex-BCB employees, including Dharam Chand and Safdar Ali.

His representations were rejected by communications dated 9 December 2021, 16 January 2023 and 28 February 2023 on the ground that the earlier judgments operated only in personam and that he had not been a party to those proceedings.

1. Whether the applicant, being similarly situated to ex-BCB employees who had been granted the benefit, was entitled to third MACP in PB-2, Rs. 9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 from 1 September 2008?

2. Whether the respondents could deny the benefit merely because the applicant was not a party to the earlier proceedings, treating those judgments as judgments in personam?

3. Whether the Original Application was barred by limitation, delay, laches or acquiescence under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, while the respondents invoked Section 21 concerning limitation.

The Tribunal applied the principle of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, namely that similarly situated employees should not be treated differently without a distinguishing basis.

It relied on the ACP/MACP framework contained in the Government’s relevant memoranda and clarifications, including the MACP Scheme dated 19 May 2009, under which financial upgradations are granted after 10, 20 and 30 years of qualifying service with effect from 1 September 2008.

The Tribunal further relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 942, for the principle that similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment even if they were not parties to earlier litigation.

Earlier decisions concerning ex-BCB employees, including O.A. No. 336/HP, O.A. No. 614/HP/2013, Dharam Chand, Safdar Ali, and Mehar Singh Chandel, established that BCB service was liable to be counted for ACP/MACP benefits and that the consequential financial upgradations could include Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s BCB service had already been accepted and counted by the respondents for determining his earlier ACP benefits.

He therefore stood on the same footing as the ex-BCB employees who had obtained the third MACP with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400.

Having accepted the underlying principle that BCB service counted for ACP/MACP purposes, the respondents could not selectively deny the consequential third MACP benefit merely because the applicant had not been a party to the earlier cases.

The plea that the earlier judgments were judgments in personam was rejected because the applicant was seeking enforcement of the same service entitlement under identical conditions, rather than an independent benefit outside the applicable rules.

The objection of limitation and delay was also rejected.

The Tribunal treated the matter as concerning pay fixation and consequential retiral benefits, noted the applicant’s repeated representations and the respondents’ continuing consideration and rejection of his claim, and held that the claim could not be treated as a stale challenge to a concluded action.

The respondents failed to identify any distinguishing circumstance justifying differential treatment between the applicant and the employees who had already received the benefit.

The respondents were directed, subject to verification of qualifying service and applicable rules, to grant the applicant third MACP in PB-2, Rs. 9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 with effect from 1 September 2008.

They were further directed to re-fix his pay and retiral benefits, release consequential arrears, and revise his pensionary benefits within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Interest was awarded at the applicable GPF rate from the respective due date until actual payment.

No order as to costs was made.