Two Retired DRDO Officers Denied Third MACP After 30 Years’ Service, As CAT Cites Their Earlier Promotions

The applicants, retired DRDO Technical Officers, joined service in 1982 and received promotions during their careers, including promotions to Senior Scientific Assistant and later Technical Officer grades.

They claimed that the redesignation or merger of certain posts and pay scales should not count as promotions for MACP purposes, and sought third financial upgradations with effect from 7 December 2012 and 14 July 2012, respectively, together with arrears and terminal benefits

The respondents opposed the claim, contending that each applicant had already received three promotions before the MACP Scheme took effect on 1 September 2008

The applicants relied, among other authorities, on decisions concerning the treatment of merged or upgraded posts and MACP eligibility

The Tribunal applied the MACP Scheme, particularly Annexure-I, Clauses 1, 2 and 5. Clause 1 provides for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, subject to the Scheme’s conditions, including 10 years of continuous service in the same grade pay; Clause 2 provides for placement in the immediate next higher grade pay; and Clause 5 provides that specified promotions or upgradations to grades whose pay scales were later merged are to be ignored for MACP purposes

The Tribunal also considered the modified MACP arrangements applicable to the DRDO Technical Cadre and distinguished the authorities relied on by the applicants as factually inapplicable

The Tribunal found that both applicants had received successive regular promotions during their service, including promotions to higher Technical Officer grades, and therefore had not remained in the same grade pay for the required periods of stagnation

It held that the redesignation or upgradation of the SSA post to TO-A could not itself be treated as a further promotion, but that this did not alter the fact that the applicants had obtained regular promotions thereafter

Read together with Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 5 did not entitle them to another financial upgradation in light of their promotion history.

The Tribunal also held that the Bangalore Bench decision relied upon concerned a different issue and did not establish entitlement to MACP in this case

The Original Application was dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs