Three prior promotions/upgradations, including TBOP, bar further MACP; the sanctioned third upgradation must be implemented.

The applicant, initially engaged as an Extra Departmental Agent, was absorbed as a Group ‘D’/MTS employee in 1980. He was promoted as Postman in 1984 and as Postal Assistant in 1988, and retired on 31 March 2013.

He claimed that, despite completing thirty years of service, he had not been granted the third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme.

The respondents rejected his claim by order dated 26 April 2018, stating that he had already received three promotions/upgradations—Postman, Postal Assistant and TBOP.

During the proceedings, the respondents relied on an order dated 25 August 2017 granting the third financial upgradation/TBOP benefit with effect from 3 February 2011, and asserted that it had been implemented by revising the applicant’s Last Pay Certificate and Service Book.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a further, third MACP/financial upgradation after his promotions as Postman and Postal Assistant.

Whether the third financial upgradation granted by order dated 25 August 2017 with effect from 3 February 2011 had in fact been extended and implemented in the applicant’s pensionary and retiral benefits.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the governing principle that financial upgradations under the MACP framework are to be considered in the context of the promotions/upgradations already granted to an employee; where three promotions/upgradations have already been received, no further third MACP benefit is ordinarily due.

The Tribunal found, on the applicant’s own pleadings, that he had been promoted from Group ‘D’ to Postman in 1984 and thereafter to Postal Assistant in 1988.

It further accepted the respondents’ documentary material showing that TBOP/third financial upgradation had been granted with effect from 3 February 2011.

Accordingly, the applicant had already received three promotions/upgradations, and the rejection of any further MACP benefit disclosed no illegality, infirmity or perversity.

However, because the applicant contended that the 25 August 2017 benefit had not actually been extended to him, the Tribunal directed the respondents to verify and, if necessary, implement that benefit.

The Original Application was disposed of with a direction that, if the benefit granted by order dated 25 August 2017 with effect from 3 February 2011 had not already been extended, the respondents must implement it and extend the consequential benefit within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The connected miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.