Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Usha Kumari vs Gnctd on 24 July, 2025
1
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3019/2024,
O.A. No.3002/2024, O.A. No. 3014/2024, M.A. No.
2768/2024, O.A. No. 3068/2024, O.A. No.3153/2024, O.A.
No.1912/2024, O.A. No. 1693/2024, O.A. No.2085/2024,
M.A. No.1811/2024
WITH
O.A.No.3495/2024
Order reserved on 03.07.2025
Order pronounced on 24.07.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
O.A. No.3019/2024
Smt. Usha Kumari, Aged- 68 Years,
w/o Sh. Devi Ram,
Retired Deputy Director of Education from the
Directorate of Education, Delhi
Resident of 81-D, DDA Flats, Ranjit Singh Marg, New
Delhi-110002
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-02
2. The Director, Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, New Delhi. - 54.
3. The Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) Directorate
of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat,
Delhi=110054
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
2
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
O.A. No.3002/2024
Smt. Bernadette Barla, Aged- 69 Years, w/o Sh. Linus
Ekka Retired Principal from the Directorate of Education,
Delhi Resident ofH.No.A-132/UG-4, Dilshad Colony,
Delhi-95
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, J.P. Estate, New Delhi. - 02,
2. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.-54
3. The Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) Directorate of
Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-
l10054
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
O.A. No.3014/2024, M.A. No.2768/2024
1. Smt. Poonam Khullar, aged 68 years w/o sh Jayant
Khullar, Retired Principal from Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi.
r/o R-530, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi 110060.
2. Smt. Jyoti Gulati, aged 68 years w/o Sh. Neeraj Gulati
Retired Principal from Directorate of Education, GNCT of
Delhi.
r/o D-79, Sushant Lok-II Sector 56, Gurgaon-122011.
3. Smt. Madhu Anand, aged 68 years w/o Late Mr. P K
Anand Retired Principal from Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi.
r/o A-152, Carlton Estate 4, DLF Phase-V, Sector 53,
Gurugram-122009
3
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
4. Smt. Kamlesh Malik, aged 69 years w/o Sh. Satish
Parkash Malik, Retired Principal from Directorate of
Education, GNCT of Delhi.
r/o 141, Bank Vihar Apartments, Plot No.16, Sector
22, Dwarka, New Delhi-I 10077
......Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, J.P. Estate, New Delhi. - 02,
2. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.-54
3. The Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) Directorate
of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat,
Delhi-l10054
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
O.A. No.3068/2024
C. K. P. Naidu, Aged- 72 Years, s/o Sh. C. B. K. Naidu,
Retired DEO from the Directorate ofEducation, Delhi
Resident of 53, Unique Apartment, sector 13, Rohini,
Delhi-110085
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, J.P. Estate, New Delhi. - 02,
2. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.-54
3. The Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) Directorate
of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat,
Delhi-l10054
4
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
O.A. No.3153/2024
Jyoti Bhatia (Principal, Retired) H. No. 134, Anand
Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Atul Kumar with Ms. Deepali)
Versus
1. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi Through
Chief Secretary Delhi Govt. Secretariat, IP Estate, New
Delhi-110002
2. Directorate of Education Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi Through Director of Education Old
Secretariat, Delhi-110054
3. Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India Through
Under Secretary, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Department of Personnel & Training Ministry of
Personnel Public Grievance & Pensions Govt. of India,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari;
Mr. Ashish Rai for R-3 & 4)
O.A. No.1912/2024
Om Parkash Dahiya, Aged- 71 Years,
s/o Late Sh. Ram Chander Retired as DEO from the
Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi Resident of
H.No. 398, Old Housing Board Colony, Near Subzi
Mandi, Sonipat (Haryana)
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
5
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary, New
Secretariat, J.P. Estate, New Delhi. - 02,
2. . The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.-54
3. The Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) Directorate of
Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-
l10054
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari;
Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh
Charak, Sr. CGSC)
O.A. No.1693/2024
Smt. Neena Kumari, Aged- 68 Years, w/o Sh. Raghu
Nathi Singh, Retired Deputy Director ofEducation from
the Directorate ofEducation, Delhi Resident of GG1/89C
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-18
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, J.P. Estate, New Delhi. - 02,
2. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.-54
3. The Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) Directorate
of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat,
Delhi-l10054
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari;
Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh
Charak, Sr. CGSC)
6
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
O.A. No.2085/2024, M.A. No.1811/2024
1. Mrs. Jyoti Gulati, Aged- 67 Years, W/o Sh. Neeraj
Gulati, Retired as Principal from S.K.V Kamla Nehru,
Jangpura, Residence of D-79, Sushant Lok-2, Sector-56,
Gurgaon-I220 11
2. Mrs. Ushma Malhotra, Aged- 64 Years, W/o Sh.
Bharat Bhushan Malhotra, Retired as Principal from
S.K.V. Nangloi, Delhi
Residence of C-26I, AIPL The Peaceful Homes, Sector-
70A, Gurugram
3. Mrs. Pratibha Mishra, Aged- 64 Years, W/o Dr. Arun
Mishra, Retired as Principai from S.V. Vasant Vihar,
Residence of D-I 185, Janak Puri, New Delhi-II 0058
4. Mrs. Sarita Sirohi, Aged- 70 Years, W/o Sh. Vijay Pal
Singh Sirohi, Retired as Principal from RSGSKV
Bawana Residence of 91 Ghalib Apartments, Pitampura,
Delhi-II 0034
5. Mrs. Kavita Rani, Aged-73 Years, W/o Sh. Vijay
Kumar Gupta, Retired as Principal from SV New Police
Lines, Residence of BC-48, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-I
10088.
6. Mrs. Anita Chachra, Aged- 70 Years, W/o Sh. S.K.
Chachra, Retired as Principal from SKY, Ahata Kedara,
Idgah Road, Delhi-II 0006 Residence ofE-168, West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-II 0008
7. Mrs. Chander Prabha Bajaj, Aged- 71 Years, W/o Sh.
Munishwar Bajaj, Retired as Principal from Govt. Girls
Senior Secondary School, Samaipur Residence of
H.No.46, pI Floor, Gujranwala Town, Pmi-II, Delhi-
110009
8. Mrs. Kamlesh Malik, Aged- 69 Years, W/o Sh. Satish
Parkash Malik, Retired as Principal from Govt. Co-Ed
SSS, Pochanpur, Dwarka, New Delhi-ll0077 Residence
of 141, Bank Vihar Aparatments, Plot No.16, Sector-22,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
7
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
9. Mrs. Meera Bhagat, Aged- 71 Years, W/o Sh.
Uppender Bhagat, Retired as Principal from SKY
Pandara Road, Residence of A-3/l04-C, Western Avenue,
Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110065
10. Mrs. Sadhna Mittal, Aged- 67 Years, W/o Sh. Ashok
Kumar Mittal, Retired as Principal from Sarvodya Kanya
Vidyalaya New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065
Residence of 413, Sector I5-A, Noida U.P.-20 1301
11. Mrs. Rita Awasthy, Aged- 72 Years, W/o Mr. R.S.
Awasthy, Retired as Vice-Principal from Sarvodaya Co-
Ed Vidyalaya, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi Residence
of A-62 1, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076
12. Mrs. Shakuntla Sethi, Aged- 68 Years, W/o Mr.
Rajinder Kumar Sethi, Retired as Principal from SKY
Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077
Residence of DDA Flat No.47, Pocket-I, Sector-23,
Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
13. Mrs. Pankaj Grover, Aged- 65 Years, W/o Mr.
Prahlad Grover, Retired as Vice-Principal from GOVt.
Co-Ed Sr. Sec. School, Raghubir Nagar, New pelhi-
110027 Residence of G-I72, DLF, Capital Green 15,
Shiyaji Marg, New Delhi-110015
14. Mrs. Anita Rani Gupta, Aged- 65 Years, W/o Sh.
Aditya Kumar Gupta, Retired as Vice-Principal from
GOVt. Girls Sr. Sec. School No.1, Khyala, New Delhi
Residence of CA-I 03, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-
110027
15. Mrs. Sneh Virander Gael, W/o Sh. Virander Gael,
Retired as Principal from S.K.V. MalYiya Nagar, New
Delhi Residence of 1077, Sector-40, Gurugram, Haryana-
122001
16. Mrs. Arun Bala Marwaha, Aged- 75 Years, W/o Late
Sh. Brji Kishor Marwaha, Retired as Principal from S.V.
BT Block, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Residence
of BS-9, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088
8
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
17. Ms. Seema Bahl, Aged- 62 Years, D/o Dr. Aryind
Bahl, Retired as Principal from SKY Malviya Nagar,
Residence of 2/48, Sarvapriya Vihar, Hauz Khas, New
Delhi-110016
18. Mrs. Amita Bhasin, Aged- 63 Years, W/o Sh. Satish
Bhasin, Retired as Principal from SKY, Aya Nagar,
Residence of H.No.4369, B5/6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-
110070
19. Mrs. Kshama Vatsa, Aged- 65 Years, W/o Sh.
Ramesh Chander Vatsa, Retired as Principal from GOVt.
Girls Senior Secondary School, Tekhand, New Delhi-II
0020 Residence of House No.202, Sukhdey Vihar, New
Delhi-II 0025
20. Ms. Rupa Puri, Aged- 67 Years, W/o Mr. B.N. Puri,
Retired as Principal from SV-1, R.K. Puram, Sector-2,
New Delhi Residence of B-65, Hill View Apartments,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-l10057
......Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi - 01
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. - 01
3. The Secretary (Education),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-02
4. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.-02
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
O.A. No.3495/2024
Suresh Kumar Kashyap, Aged- 62 Years, s/o Sh.
K.N.Kashyap Retired Principal from the Directorate of
9
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
Education, Delhi Resident of G-28, Gali No.2, Aruna
Park, Shakarpur Extension, Delhi-110092
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, J.P. Estate, New Delhi. - 02,
2. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.-54
3. The Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) Directorate
of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat,
Delhi-l10054
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
The present original applications (OAs) are being heard together, as they involve identical issues, differing only in the dates of entitlement to the relief(s) sought. With the consent of both parties, OA No. 3019/2024, titled Usha Kumari vs. GNCTD, is being treated as the lead matter.
2. M.A. Nos. 2768/2024 & 1811/2024 (Joining Together) are allowed and the applicants are allowed to pursue the OA jointly.
10
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
3. The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 20.6.2024 (Annex.A/I) only in respect of present applicant declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the law and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for granting financial upgradations under MACP scheme from due date i.e. 1.9.2008 first upgradation and w.e.f.1.5.1999 second upgradation by ignoring the uncommunicated below bench grading ACRs and grant the 1st financial up-gradation to the applicant in grade pay ofRs.8700/-
in PB-IV/Pay Level 13 from due date i.e. w.e.f. 1.9.2008 and also second upgradation w.e.f. 1.5.1999 by way of extending the benefit of judgment No.2639/2012 dated 27.02.2015 modified by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 12.10.2022 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances and revision of retirement benefits with arrears and with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
4. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
4.1 The applicant was appointed as TGT on 02.01.1981, and later promoted to PGT in May 1987 and Principal on 01.05.1989, through UPSC. The applicant's pay scale was revised to Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- as per the 6th CPC recommendations. The applicant was promoted to Education 11 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch Officer in the year 2005 and Deputy Director of Education in the year 2010, both in the same Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-. The applicant retired as Additional Director of Education in the grade pay of Rs. 8700/- on 30.04.2016.
4.2 The next promotional post from the Principal is to the post of Education Officer in the same grade pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB-III after 01.01.2006, and further to the post of Deputy Director of Education, which is also in the same grade pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB-III after 01.01.2006.
4.3 The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme was introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th CPC, and a circular was issued by the Directorate of Education on 19.08.2009 for its implementation. The scheme provides financial upgradations after 10, 20, and 30 years of service. A letter dated 22.10.2009 provided for directly recruited Principals and Education Officers to receive Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/-, Rs. 8900/-, and Rs. 10,000/- in PB-4 as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.
4.4 A similar case, OA No. 2639/2012, was decided by the Tribunal on 27.02.2015. The judgment was challenged by both parties before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and the Court dismissed the department's writ petition on 09.05.2016. The 12 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the department's SLP on 03.08.2022, making the Tribunal's judgment final.
4.5 The applicant made a representation for extending the benefit of the judgment and subsequently filed OA No. 2014/2016, which was decided on 24.01.2023. When the respondents failed to implement the judgment, the applicant filed a contempt petition, and after notices were issued, the respondents granted benefits to 151 persons but rejected the applicant's claim vide order dated 20.06.2024, citing "grading below benchmark" as the reason. The applicant has filed this OA challenging the rejection, arguing that the respondents' action is illegal and arbitrary.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that the ACRs were as follows:
Name & Design. Date of Years APARs
Birth Grading
Usha Kumari, DDE 12.04.1956 2002-03 Good
(Retd.),12.04.1956(
Emp. ID-19810033) 2003-04 Very Good
2004-05 Non
Reporting
Certificate
2005-06 Good
2006-07 Very Good
2007-08 Very Good
13
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was directly recruited as Principal through UPSC on 01.05.1989 and subsequently promoted to Education Officer on 31.12.2004, Deputy Director of Education on 27.07.2010, and Additional Director of Education on 28.04.2016.
6.1 It is the bone of contention that the benchmark for promotion was "Good," and the applicant was granted promotions accordingly. Since the applicant retired on 30.04.2016 and had knowledge of her service records, her failure to challenge the ACRs earlier amounts to waiver and acceptance.
6.2 Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the applicant cannot challenge the present DSC held on 05.06.2023 for grant of MACP benefits, as per the MACP guidelines issued by DoPT on 21.11.2022, which require a benchmark of "Very Good"
for the grant of MACP.
6.3 The respondents also argued that the applicant's plea of not being communicated ACRs is not tenable, as prior to 2008-09, only below-benchmark ACRs relevant to promotion needed to be communicated, and the applicant was promoted without any 14 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch adverse remarks. The relevant DoPT OMs are dated 13.04.2010 and 21.11.2022.
6.4 Learned counsel for the respondents further refers to clause 27(ii) of the office Memorandum dated 21.11.2022 regarding ACP/MACP, which reads as under:-
"BENCHMARK GRADING IN APARs ***** 27(ii). while assessing the suitability of an employee for grant of MACP, the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) shall assess the APARs in the reckoning period. The benchmark for the APARs for the years 2016-17 and thereafter shall be 'Very Good'. The benchmark for the years 2015-16 and earlier years shall continue be as per the MACP guidelines issued vide DoPT O.M. dated 19.05.2009: "The financial upgradation would be non-functional basis subject to fitness in the hierarchy of grade pay within the PB-I. Thereafter for upgradation under the MACPS the benchmark of 'good' would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3. The benchmark will be 'Very Good' for financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs. 7600 and above."
6.5 Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the principles of estoppel and acquiescence, thus, arguing that the applicant's challenge to the benchmark grading in APARs under the MACP Scheme at this delayed stage is not tenable.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered in OA No. 2742/2023 titled Dr. B.S. 15 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch Rajpurohit vs. Union of India & Anr. He further highlights that in the earlier round of litigation, the present applicant approached this Tribunal by way of OA No. 2014/2016 and the following direction was passed while disposing of the OA:-
"5. As stated above, the applicants in O.A. No. 2639/2012 and the applicants in instant O.A.s are similarly situated and their cases are identical. In these circumstances, we dispose of all the instant O.A.s by passing the following order:
The respondents are directed to grant first financial upgradation under MACPS to all the applicants in all the instant O.A.s in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-4 from the date of implementation of the Scheme or their respective entitlement, whichever is later along with arrears and interest as admissible in law, as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7.1 Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the impugned order has been passed which is under challenge in the present OA.
7.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further drew our attention to para 3 of (5) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees- Clarification vide OM dated 01.11.2010, which reads as under:-
"3. The Staff Side also raised an issue on the 'benchmark' for MACP as given in para 17 of Annexure-1 of MACPS dated 19.05.2009, which provides that the financial upgradation would be on non-functional basis subject to fitness, in the hierarchy of grade pay within the P13-1. Thereafter for upgradation under the MACPS, the benchmark of 16 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch 'good' would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs. 6600/- in PI3-3. The benchmark will be 'Very Good' for financial upgradation to the grade pay of lis.7600 and above. It was pointed out that in some cases the promotion to the next higher grade was made on the basis of 'fitness' as the method of promotion as specified in the relevant recruitment rules, was 'non- selection'. Therefore, in such cases benchmarks should not be insisted upon under the MACPS. The issue has been examined and it is clarified that where the financial upgradation under MACPS also happen to be in the promotional grade and benchmark for promotion is lower than the benchmark for granting the benefits under MAU'S as mentioned in para 17 ibid, the benchmark for promotion shall apply to MACP also."
7.3 The learned counsel for the applicant raised the following key questions that need to be addressed:
1. Whether the benchmark for promotion applies to the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme or not?
2. Whether the benchmark can be considered by the Screening Committee for MACP purposes without being communicated to the applicant?
3. Whether the lack of communication of the benchmark after the applicant's retirement can be held against her, especially when the reviewing and reporting authorities have already retired?17
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
4. Whether the non-communication of benchmark grading is contrary to Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
He emphasizes that these questions are crucial in determining the applicant's entitlement to MACP benefits. 7.4. Learned counsel further draws our attention to para 2
(ii) of OM dated 04.10.2012, which reads as under:-
"2. (ii) Benchmark for MACP Scheme:
Para. 17 of Annexure-I of the MACP Scheme provide that the financial upgradation would be on non- functional basis subject to fitness, in the hierarchy of grade pay within the PB-I. Thereafter for upgradation under the MACPS, the benchmark or 'Good' would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs.6,600 in PB-3. The benchmark will be 'Very Good' for financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs. 7,600 and above. This Department's O.M. No. 3503413/2008-Estt. (D) (Vol. II), dated 1-11-2010 provides that where the financial upgradation under MACPs also happens (0 be in the promotional grade and benchmark for promotion is lower than the benchmark for granting the benefit under MACPS as mentioned in Para. 17 ibid, the benchmark for promotion shall apply to MACP also. It is now further clarified that wherever promotions are given on non-selection basis (i.e. on seniority-cum-fitness basis), the prescribed benchmark as mentioned in Para. 17 of Annexure-I of MACP Scheme, dated 19-5-2009 shall not apply for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme."18
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch 7.5 Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 5106/2016, titled S.K. Saraswat & Ors. vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors., dated 12.10.2022, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This judgment is cited to support the applicant's claim for MACP benefits.
7.6 Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant in the connected OA relied upon the following documents and judgments:
(i) MACP Scheme 2009 amended upto date;
(ii) Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors reported in (2009) 16 SCC 146;
(iii) Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2008)
8 SCC 725;
(iv) Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 566;
(v) Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, Union Public Services Commission & Ors. reported in (2015) 14 SCC 427;
(vi) Union of India & Ors. Vs. G.R. Meghwal reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1291 19 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch
(vii) Achkan Arvind Priyadarshi Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online Del 8035;
(viii) Sanjeev Dhundia vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2020 SCC Online Del 1842;
(ix) Manudev Dahiya vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4164;
(x) W.P. (C) No. 10486/2017 titled Vidya Shankar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 10.04.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
(xi) W.P. (C) No. 12302/2018 titled ASI Ravinder Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
(xii) O.A. No. 2421/2019 titled Kripal Singh vs. The Secretary, Min. of Housing and Urban Affairs & Ors. dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Tribunal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
9 ANALYSIS :
9.1 For the sake of clarity, ACRs/APARs and brief details of the applicants in each O.A are as under:-20
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch O.A. No.3002/2024 Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs Grading Bernadette Barla, 03.04.1955 2004-05 Very Good Principal (Retd.), Emp. ID- 2005-06 Good 19915323 2006-07 Good 2007-08 Good 2008-09 Not reported/N A 2009-10 Not reported/N A 2010-11 Very Good The applicant was appointed to the post of Principal w.e.f 19.01.2002 through UPSC and retired from the post of Principal on 30.04.2015 as per OA of the applicant. The case of the applicant was considered and accordingly ACRs/ APARs of last 5 years (i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) were required to be considered as per the guidelines of MACP scheme issued by DoPT. Since the APARs/ ACR for the years 2008-09 & 2009-10 were not reported/not available so the AP ARs/ ACRs for the years 2004-05 & 2005-06 were considered.
However, ACRs/ APARs for the year 2005:-06 & 2006-07 of the officer was below benchmark and her name was rejected for 21 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch grant of MACP. Further, the Applicant has retired on 30.04.2015.
O.A. No.3014/2024 Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs Grading Poonam Khullar, 05.01.1956 2004-05 Good Principal (Retd.), (Emp. 2005-06 Very Good ID197900625) 2006-07 Good 01.04.200 Not 7- available as 25.04.200 per record 7 26.04.207 Good - 31.03.200 8 2008-09 Very Good 2009-10 Outstanding Jyoti Gulati, 22.07.1956 2004-05 Good Principal (Retd.) 2005-06 Very Good 2006-07 Very Good 2007-08 Very Good 2008-09 Good Madhu Anand, 04.06.1956 2004-05 Good Principal (Retd,) 2005-06 Very Good 2006-07 Very Good 2007-08 Good 2008-09 Very Good 22 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch Kamlesh Malik, 14.01.1955 2004-05 Good Principal (Retd. 2005-06 Very Good 2006-07 Good 2007-08 Very Good 2008-09 Very Good
Smt. Poonam Khullar joined as PGT w.e.f. 30.10.1979, Smt. Jyoti Gulati joined as PGT w.e.f. 05.09.1979, Smt. Madhu Anand joined as POT w.e.f. 23.11.1979 and Smt. Kamlesh Malik joined as POT w.e.f. 01.09.1979. Further, the Applicants have retired from the posts of Principal on 31.01.2016, 31.07.2016, 30.06.2016 and 31.01.2015 respectively. O.A. No. 3068/2024 Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs Grading CKP Naidu, DEO 01.06.1952 2006-07 Good (Retd.) Emp. ID-
19780062 2007-08 Very Good
2008-09 Good
2009-10 Outstanding
2010-11 Good
Applicant was directly selected as Principal through UPSC and joined on 23.03.2002 and further he was given charge of the post of DEO. The bench mark for availing the promotion to 23 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch the post of EO/ADE as per RRs and DoPT OM issued was "Good" and as the applicant had not been promoted till his superannuation, therefore, there was no need to communicate to the concerned officer as per DoPT OM dated 13.04.2010 as only the adverse remarks in the ACRs had to be communicated to the concerned officer for representation, if any to be considered by the competent authority. Further, the Applicant retired on, 31.05.2012.
O.A. No. 3153/2024
Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs
Grading
Jyoti Bhatia, 15.09.1957 2004-05 Outstandin
Principal g
(Retired)
2005-06 Very Good
2006-07 Very Good
2007-08 Good
2008-09 Good
209-10 NA
The Applicant was promoted to the post of Principal w.e.f. 29.06.2010. Since the bench mark for availing promotion was "Good" there was no challenge to these ACRs and she was granted promotion as per RRs & DoPT OM dated 08.02.2002. Further, the Applicant has retired on 30.09.2017.
24 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch O.A. No. 3153/2024 Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs Grading Om Prakash 16.04.1953 2005-06 Very Good Dahiya, EO (Retd.) (Emp. ID 2006-07 Good 19800936) 2007-08 Good 2008-09 Not available as per record 2009-10 Very Good 2010-11 Good
The applicant was appointed to the post of Principal on direct recruitment basis on 28.11.2001 and joined on 15.12.2001. The Applicant availed promotion to the post of EO/ADE w.e.f. 13.01.2011. Since, the bench mark for availing promotion was "Good" there was no challenge to these ACRs and he was granted promotion as per RRs & DoPT OM dated 08.02.2002, 'further, the Applicant has retired on 30.04.2013.
O.A. No. 1693/2024 Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs Grading Neena Kumar, 08.01.1956 2001-02 Good DDE (Retd.) (Emp. ID- 2002-03 Good 19790668) 2003-04 Very Good 25 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch 2004-05 NAC (Non Availability Certificate) 2005-06 NAC (Non Availability Certificate) 01.04.200 NAC (Non 6 to Availability 22.09.200 Certificate) 6 23.09.200 Very Good 6 To 31.03.200 7 2007-08 Very Good
The Applicant was directly recruited to the post of Principal through UPSC w.e.f. 01.05.1992 and was promoted to the post of EO w.e.f. 14.03.2005 and thereafter to the post of DDE w.e.f. 25.06.2011. Since the bench mark for availing promotion was "Good" there was no challenge to these ACRs and she was granted promotion as per DoPT OM dated 08.02.2002. Further, the Applicant has retired on 31.01.2016.
O.A. No. 2085/2024 Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs Grading Jyoti Gulati, 22.07.1956 2004-05 Good Principal (Retd.) 2005-06 Very Good 2006-07 Very Good 26 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch 2007-08 Very Good 2008-09 Good Kamlesh Malik, 14.01.1955 2004-05 Good Principal (Retd. 2005-06 Very Good 2006-07 Good 2007-08 Very Good 2008-09 Very Good Shakuntla Sethi, 15.09.1955 2004-05 Good Principal (Retd.) 2005-06 Good 2006-07 Very Good 2007-08 Good 2008-09 Very Good 2009-10 Very Good Pankaj Grover, 02.01.1959 2007-08 Good Vice Principal, (Retd.) 2008-09 Good 2009-10 Very Good 2010-11 Very Good 2011-12 6.00
Smt. Jyoti Gulati availed the promotion to the post of Principal w.e.f. 27.10.2008, Smt. Kamlesh Malik to the post of Principal w.e.f. 03.07.2006, Smt. Shakuntla Sethi to the post of Principal w.e.f. 04.02.2011 and Smt. Pankaj Grover to the post of Vice-Principal w.e.f. 03.07.2006 respectively. Since the bench mark for availing promotion was "Good" there was no challenge to these ACRs and they were granted promotion as 27 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch per rules. Further, the Applicants have retired on 31.07.2016, 31.01.2015, 30.09.2015 and 31.01.2019 respectively.
O.A. No. 3495/2024
Name & Design. Date of Birth Years APARs
Grading
Suresh Kumar 12.10.1962 2014-15 Good
Kashyap,
Principal (Retd.) 2015-16 Good
2016-17 Very Good
2017-18 Very Good
2018-19 Very Good
The applicant was appointed to the post of PGT, thereafter promoted to the post of Vice Principal and then to the post of Principal. The applicant has retired on 31.10.2022 and all service records were in his knowledge. The case of the applicant was considered for grant of MACP and accordingly, ACRs/APARs of last 5 years (i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) were required to be considered as per guidelines of MACP scheme issued by DoPT. However, ACRs/ APARs for the year 2014-15 & 2015-16 of the officer were below benchmark and thus his case was rejected for grant of MACP.
28
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch 9.2 In Civil Appeal No. /2025 [Arising Out Of Slp(C) No.6289/2019] The Chief Executive Officer & Others Vs S. Lalitha & Others decided On 24.04.2025, the Apex Court observations are as under :-
"30. There could, however, be innumerable cases where formal orders may not exist affecting the rights of public servants covered by the 1985 Act but affectation of their rights could arise out of silence or inaction of the employer to confer an otherwise legitimate benefit. What is the recourse available in such a case? In such cases, it is eminently desirable that steps be first taken by the public servant to invite the attention of the employer to such affectation of rights for the same to be addressed by the employer. Suppose, a public servant is due for promotion or is due for a pay raise or claims entitlement to any service benefit which, according to him, is due but the employer has remained silent or inactive in not giving the public servant what is due to him. In such cases, the only way of espousing one's grievance is through a representation bringing to the notice of the employer that grant of the service benefit, though due, has not been considered and that the grievance be redressed. If the grievance is not redressed despite receiving the representation and despite expiry of the period mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the 1985 Act, in such cases, the CAT cannot throw out an original application by holding that the remedy by way of a representation is not provided in the service rules. However, the public servant has to be cautious and take care not to wait indefinitely for espousing his grievance from the date affectation of his right begins. If he does wait indefinitely, he does so at his own peril.
31. Or, take a case where there is no employer-employee relationship yet, viz., the case of an aspirant for public employment who participates in the selection process but turns out to be unsuccessful. Should he have any grievance in relation to the process and seeks to challenge the same, he may do so immediately before accrual of third party rights; or, he may first represent and if there be no response or any response which does not address his grievance, he may apply before the CAT under Section 19 of the 1985 Act within the prescribed period of limitation. However, if there is delay and third party rights accrue, the delay has to be explained and condonation sought.
32. Reading Section 20 as we have interpreted it above with the guiding light provided by S.S. Rathore (supra) and M.K. Sarkar 29 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch (supra), we need to consider whether the O.A. filed by the respondent before the Tribunal was within time or not.
33. The respondent did not in the O.A. plead and indicate the specific provision in the service rules in terms whereof she sought relief from the 3rd appellant by filing the representation dated 4th October, 2016. In the absence of such pleading, one has to proceed on the premise that she had made the representation on her own without the same being provided under any service rules applicable to her and, in that sense, it was a non-statutory representation. The period of limitation could not have been stretched by the respondent by asserting that rejection of her non-statutory representation resulted in accrual of the cause of action for moving the Tribunal."
9.3 The reference has been made to the above observations by the Apex Court in S. LALITHA & OTHERS (supra), as the respondents have vehemently taken a plea of acquiescence and estoppel on account of the applicant(s) being aware of their benchmark for purposes of promotion.
9.4 The object of the grant of MACP is to provide relief against stagnation; the same is not to be construed as akin to promotion. 9.5 The respondents have not taken into account the factum of OM dated 1.11.2010 read with OM dated 4.10.2012 -clarification, which reads as under :-
"2.(ii) Benchmark for MACP Scheme:
Para 17 of Annexure-I of the MACP Scheme provide that the financial upgradation would be on non- functional basis subject to fitness, in the hierarchy of grade pay within the PB-1. Thereafter, for upgradation under the MACPS, the benchmark of 'good' would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3. The benchmark will be 'Very Good' for financial 30 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch upgradation to the grade pay of Rs. 7600 and above. The Department's OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) (Vol.11) dated 01.11.2010 provides that where the financial upgradation under MACPS also happens to be in the promotional grade and benchmark for promotion is lower than the benchmark for granting the benefit under MACPS as mentioned in para 17 ibid, the benchmark for promotion shall apply to MACP also. It is now further clarified that wherever promotions are given on non-selection basis (i.e. on seniority -- cum -- fitness basis), the prescribed benchmark as mentioned in para 17 of Annexure -- I of MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009 shall not apply for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme."
9.6 We find that the respondents' contention that the applicants are barred by acquiescence and estoppel from challenging the ACRs is unconvincing. The applicants' due dates for MACP upgradation preceded their respective promotions. The MACP Scheme was introduced on 19.05.2009. Since the due dates for upgradation fell prior to their promotions, it cannot be said that the applicants were aware of the below-benchmark grading at the time of their promotion. Clause 3 of the OM dated 01.11.2010, read with the OM dated 04.10.2012, further clarifies the position and ought to have been taken into consideration while rejecting the applicants' claims. Had the respondents considered the contents of the said OMs, the outcome might have been different. In these circumstances, the principles of acquiescence and estoppel do not apply. Notably, the applicants' entitlement to MACP/financial 31 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch upgradation arose prior to their promotions, rendering the respondents' rejection orders contrary to the applicable OMs. 9.7 In the event an employee's APARs prior to the date of consideration were graded as 'Good', they may have the opportunity to represent against it if the MACP is considered after the revised date (i.e., fixation of pay on grant of financial upgradation under MACPS on or after 01.01.2016, which shall be made as per Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, issued vide Department of Expenditure notification dated 25th July, 2016), but this is not explicitly specified. Probably, the applicant(s) have made representation(s) as if their cases are covered after the revised date. 9.8. The fact of the matter is that the applicant(s), as we observe, under the MACP Scheme, were to be considered for the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, which is the immediately higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay band, prior to their date of retirement. Though the benchmark was communicated to the applicant(s) in the year following the decision rendered in Saraswat's case, it was done belatedly, only after the applicant had retired.
9.9 The fixation of financial upgradation under MACPS prior to 01.01.2016 shall be governed by the provisions of the OMs dated 01.11.2010 and 04.10.2012, which were in force at the relevant 32 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch time. The instructions related to the revision of the benchmark are applicable prospectively from the date of their issuance. 9.10. In Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines (P) Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that acquiescence arises only out of positive acts and not merely from silence or inaction. It went so far as to state that acquiescence is "one facet of delay," which, by itself, is not sufficient to deprive a party of its rights. The rights asserted by the applicant(s) are legal rights that have accrued to them not only by virtue of the clarifications dated 01.11.2010 and the OM dated 04.10.2012, but also due to the compliance made by the respondents with the decisions rendered in pending court cases at a later stage-- decisions that had a cascading effect on the applicants' service conditions. The clarification issued by the DoPT, in fact, nullifies the defense raised by the respondents that the applicant(s) were estopped from challenging the APAR at a later stage, despite having knowledge of the lower benchmark at the time of the grant of promotion. Hence, it is the anomaly of applying a higher benchmark for the purposes of MACP that is sought to be rectified; therefore, a meaningful and purposive interpretation ought to be given to the language used in the clarification. 33
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch 9.11 We also note that in OA No. 2014/2016 and batch matters titled "Mahinder Singh Rathee vs. Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi", the Hon'ble Chairman of this Tribunal was pleased to direct as under:--
"5. As stated above, the applicants in O.A. No. 2639/2012 and the applicants in instant O.A.s are similarly situated, and their cases are identical. In these circumstances, we dispose of all the instant O.A.s by passing the following order:
The respondents are directed to grant first financial upgradation under MACPS to all the applicants in all the instant O.A.s in the grade pay of Rs. 8700/- in PB-4 from the date of implementation of the Scheme or their respective entitlement, whichever is later along with arrears and interest as admissible in law, as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
10. CONCLUSION 10.1 Post-recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, the benchmark grading in Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) plays a crucial role in determining eligibility for financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme. It has been mandated that the prescribed benchmark for all levels, effective from 25.07.2016, shall be "Very Good." This revised benchmark applies to APARs for the year 2016-17 and subsequent years.
(i) If a particular MACP falls due before 25.07.2016, the corresponding benchmarks for APAR, ACR, and APAR grading of 34 Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch "Good" for the immediately preceding five years shall be treated as "Very Good" in terms of the clarification dated 04.10.2012. 10.2 If a particular MACP falls due on or after 25.07.2016, the corresponding benchmarks for APAR, ACR, and APAR grading of "Good" for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 shall be treated as "Very Good."
10.3 The grant of MACP is purely personal to an individual, depending on eligibility at 10/20/30 years, as the case may be. The financial upgradations shall be personal to the employee and shall have no bearing on his/her seniority or related stipulations. 10.4 As analyzed above, we sum up the issues as follows:
1. Whether the benchmark for promotion applies to the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme?
In the present case, the decision ought to be taken on the basis of the clarification dated 01.11.2010 followed by the OM dated 04.10.2012, ignoring the lower benchmark grading.
2. Whether the benchmark can be considered by the Screening Committee for MACP purposes without being communicated to the applicant?
35Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch This issue is no longer res integra in light of the decisions rendered in Dastidar (supra) and Dev Dutt (supra).
3. Whether the lack of communication regarding the benchmark after the applicant's retirement can be held against them, especially when the reviewing and reporting authorities have already retired?
The grant of MACP is purely personal in nature; the answer will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
4. Whether the non-communication of benchmark grading is contrary to Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
This issue is left open, as it also depends on the facts of the individual case.
10.5 The impugned order(s) passed by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside in respect of each of the applicants. The respondents are directed to re-examine the issue afresh, taking into account the clarification dated 01.11.2010 followed by the OM dated 04.10.2012, on a case-by-case basis. That is, since the financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is higher than that for promotion, the benchmark prescribed for promotion shall apply to MACP as well--provided the promotions are granted on a non- 36
Item No.43/ Court-V O.A. No.3019/2024 & batch selection basis (i.e., on a seniority-cum-fitness basis). Accordingly, the prescribed benchmark mentioned in para 17 of Annexure-I of the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009 shall not apply for the purpose of granting financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and is to be ignored.
(i) After assessing and examining the cases, the respondents shall grant the benefits to the respective applicant(s) by revising their pay scale and pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Consequential reliefs shall follow. In case of failure to comply with this order within the stipulated time, the applicant(s) shall be entitled to interest at GPF rates for the delayed period till the date of actual payment.
(ii) The OAs are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs. 10.6 A copy of this order shall be placed on record in each of the connected OAs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/