Unilateral request for reversion to a lower post precludes MACP financial upgradation based on previous higher grades.

The three applicants were originally appointed as Assistant Station Masters (ASM) in various Railway Divisions. Following promotions to Station Superintendent (SS) and grant of 2nd financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), they sought unilateral voluntary transfers to the Khurda Road Division

In accordance with the terms of such transfers, they accepted reversion to the lower post of Station Master (SM) in Level-6 (GP Rs. 4200) with bottom seniority, while their pay was protected at the higher levels previously drawn

Upon completing 30 years of service, the applicants claimed entitlement to the 3rd MACP at Level-9 (GP Rs. 5400). However, the Respondents granted the 3rd MACP at Level-7 (GP Rs. 4600), counting the progression from the reverted Grade Pay of Rs. 4200

In O.A. 507/2024, the Respondents further sought to recover excess payments resulting from an alleged error in pay fixation

1. Whether an employee who voluntarily reverts to a lower post on unilateral transfer is entitled to the 3rd MACP financial upgradation in the hierarchy of his pre-reversion post or the hierarchy of the reverted post

2. Whether the recovery of excess payments from a Group-C employee is permissible when the payment was made due to an administrative oversight and not misrepresentation by the employee

The Court applied Railway Board Circular RBE No. 101/2009 regarding the MACP Scheme

It specifically relied on RBE No. 147/2015, which stipulates that for unilateral transfers to a lower post, past promotions in the previous organization are ignored, and financial upgradation is allowed in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the new (reverted) post

Regarding recovery, the court followed the principles established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) and recently reaffirmed in Jogeswar Sahoo Ors v. The Dist. Judge Cuttack (2025), which prohibit recovery from Group-C/Level-III employees or when excess payment spans more than five years

The Tribunal reasoned that once an employee accepts a lower post on their own volition with pay protection, they are bound by the financial upgradation hierarchy of that reverted post

Granting MACP based on a higher pre-reversion grade would render the "joining in a lower post" meaningless and lead to administrative complications regarding senior-junior pay parity

The court observed that the applicants were already enjoying "protected pay" (unjust enrichment) and could not claim a higher Grade Pay hierarchy than what was available for the rank they currently held

However, regarding the recovery in O.A. 507/2024, the court found that as the applicant was a Group-C employee and the recovery pertained to a period exceeding five years (starting from 2018, sought in 2024), it would be "iniquitous or harsh"

In O.A. No. 507/2024, while the court upheld the rectification of the pay scale (dismissing the MACP claim), it quashed the recovery order. The Respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered from the applicant in O.A. 507/2024 within 60 days