Facts
The applicant, Avimanyu Nayak, was initially appointed as a Postal Assistant (SBCO) on 27.05.1983.
Source reference: p.2He received financial upgradation under TBOP from 21.09.1991 (later revised to 01.08.1991).
Source reference: p.2, 5He was promoted to Assistant Accounts Officer on 28.12.2007.
Source reference: p.2Subsequently, he was granted 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme on 27.05.2013, on completion of 30 years of service, having received only one financial upgradation under TBOP and one promotion to AAO prior to that.
Source reference: p.2, 4, 5-6On 27.10.2014, he was promoted to Accounts Officer, and on 08.05.2017 to Sr. Accounts Officer, retiring on 31.08.2019.
Source reference: p.2In compliance with an Hon'ble Apex Court order dated 13.02.2017, the applicant was granted BCR promotion with retrospective effect from 01.07.1995, at par with his junior Sri Dinabandhu Saran.
Source reference: p.2-3, 6Following this, the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP granted from 27.05.2013 was withdrawn.
Source reference: p.3, 6His pay was revised/refixed w.e.f. 01.07.1995, and arrears totaling Rs. 5,31,690/- were paid.
Source reference: p.3The applicant claimed short payment of Rs. 72,157/- alleging arbitrary withdrawal of his 3rd MACP upgradation.
Source reference: p.3, 4His representation claiming this amount was rejected on 31.01.2024.
Source reference: p.4Issues
1. Whether the withdrawal of the applicant's 3rd financial upgradation under MACP, previously granted on 27.05.2013, after he was granted BCR promotion with retrospective effect from 01.07.1995, was illegal or arbitrary?
Source reference: p.42. Whether the applicant was entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 72,157/- as arrears of pay and allowances with 12% interest?
Source reference: p.43. Whether the withdrawal of benefits without giving the applicant an opportunity was bad in law?
Source reference: p.4-5, 6Law Applied
The court applied the principles of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, which provides for three financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service if there are no promotions during that period.
Source reference: p.5It referred to DoP&T O.M. dated 19.05.2009 regarding clarifications on the MACP scheme.
Source reference: p.3The court also applied the maxim that non-compliance with natural justice principles does not vitiate action if the result would be the same.
Source reference: p.6-7Reasoning
The court found that the applicant was initially granted the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP on 27.05.2013 because, at that time, he had received only one financial upgradation under TBOP (01.08.1991) and one promotion to AAO (28.12.2007), making him eligible for the 3rd MACP benefit after 30 years of service.
Source reference: p.5-6However, subsequent to an Apex Court order, the applicant was granted BCR promotion with retrospective effect from 01.07.1995.
Source reference: p.6With the grant of BCR in 1995, the court reasoned that the prior 3rd MACP upgradation granted in 2013 legitimately had to be withdrawn.
Source reference: p.6Allowing the retention of both benefits would amount to undue enrichment, contrary to the basic principle of the MACP Scheme, which aims to address stagnation.
Source reference: p.6The court examined the illustration cited by the applicant but found it not applicable to the present case.
Source reference: p.6Regarding the argument that the withdrawal was made without opportunity, the court held that where the outcome would remain the same, non-compliance with natural justice is not a sufficient ground to annul the authorities' action.
Source reference: p.6-7Holding
The OA was dismissed.
The court concluded that the withdrawal of the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP, subsequent to the retrospective grant of BCR promotion from 01.07.1995, was not illegal, arbitrary, or flawed.
Source reference: p.6-7Consequently, there was no short payment of arrears as alleged by the applicant, and the rejection order dated 31.01.2024 was found to be valid.
Source reference: p.6The applicant's prayer for Rs. 72,157/- with interest was denied.
Source reference: p.4, 7Original Court PDF
Avimanyu Nayak v. Union of India, O.A.No. 260/00154 of 2024
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in