Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Gopal Sharma vs Gnctd on 19 August, 2025
1
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1224/2024,
This the 19th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Raj Gopal Sharma, Aged-73 years, S/o Sh. Madan Gopal
Sharma, Retired Education Officer from the Directorate
of Education, Delhi Resident of 68-C, Pocket A-12, MIG
DDA Flats, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-19
...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 with Mr. D K Singh)
---
2
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
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 22.2.2024 (wrongly mentioned 22.4.2024) (Annex.A/1) 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 upgradation under MACP scheme from due date i.e. 19.2008 by ignoring the uncommunicated below bench grading ACR and grant the 1st financial up-gradation to the applicant in grade pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-
IV/Pay Level 13 from due date i.e. w.e.f. 1.9.2008 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."
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
2.1 The applicant was appointed to the post of Principal on 20.01.1994 in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/-, which has been revised in the Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The applicant was promoted to Education Officer in the year 2007 3 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 in the same Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-. The applicant retired on 31.08.2010.
2.2 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.
2.3 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. 2.4 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the department's SLP on 03.08.2022, making the Tribunal's judgment final. 4
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 2.5 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 22.04.2024, citing "grading is below benchmark" as the reason. The applicant has filed this OA challenging the rejection, arguing that the respondents' action is illegal and arbitrary.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that the ACRs were as follows:
Name & Date of Years APARs Grading
Design. Birth
Raj Gopal 04.08.1950 2002-03 Outstanding
Sharma, EO,
(Retd.), (Emp. 2003-04 Average
ID-19721188) 2004-05 Good
2005-06 Reporting Officer-
Grading 'Very
Good' in part-C and
part-D not reviewed
as "the then Addl.
DE (School), the
Reviewing Officer
had already retired.
2006-07 Very Good
2007-08 Very Good
5
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was directly recruited as Principal through UPSC on 20.01.1994 and subsequently promoted to Education Officer on 24.04.2007.
4.1 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 31.08.2010 and had knowledge of his service records, his failure to challenge the ACRs earlier amounts to waiver and acceptance.
4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the applicant cannot challenge the present DSC held on 18.01.2024 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.
4.3 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 adverse remarks. The relevant DoPT OMs are dated 13.04.2010 and 21.11.2022.6
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 4.4 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."
4.5 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.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered in OA No. 2742/2023 titled Dr. B.S. Rajpurohit vs. Union of India & Anr. He further highlights that in the earlier round of litigation, the present applicant 7 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 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."
5.1 Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the impugned order has been passed which is under challenge in the present OA.
5.2 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 '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 8 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 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."
5.3 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?
4. Whether the non-communication of benchmark grading is contrary to Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?9
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 He emphasizes that these questions are crucial in determining the applicant's entitlement to MACP benefits. 5.4. 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."
5.5 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 10 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court. This judgment is cited to support the applicant's claim for MACP benefits.
5.6 Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant also 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
(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;
11
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 (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.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1 For the sake of clarity, ACRs/APARs and brief detail of the applicant is as under:-
Name & Date of Years APARs Grading
Design. Birth
Raj Gopal 04.08.1950 2002-03 Outstanding
Sharma, EO,
(Retd.), (Emp. 2003-04 Average
ID-19721188) 2004-05 Good
12
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024
2005-06 Reporting Officer-
Grading 'Very
Good' in part-C and
part-D not reviewed
as "the then Addl.
DE (School), the
Reviewing Officer
had already retired.
2006-07 Very Good
2007-08 Very Good
The applicant was appointed to the post of Principal w.e.f 20.01.1994 through UPSC and retired on 31.08.2010. The case of the applicant was considered and accordingly ACRs/ APARs of last 5 years were required to be considered as per the guidelines of MACP scheme issued by DoPT. 7.2 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 13 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 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 (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."
7.3 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 14 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 estoppel on account of the applicant being aware of HIS benchmark for purposes of promotion.
7.4 The object of the grant of MACP is to provide relief against stagnation; the same is not to be construed as akin to promotion. 7.5 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 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."
7.6 We find that the respondents' contention that the applicant is barred by acquiescence and estoppel from challenging the ACRs is 15 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 unconvincing. The applicant's due dates for MACP upgradation preceded his 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 applicant was aware of the below-benchmark grading at the time of his 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 applicant's 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 applicant's entitlement to MACP/financial upgradation arose prior to their promotions, rendering the respondents' rejection orders contrary to the applicable OMs. 7.7 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 16 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 specified. Probably, the applicant has made representation as if his case is covered after the revised date.
7.8. The fact of the matter is that the applicant, as we observe, under the MACP Scheme, was 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 his date of retirement. Though the benchmark was communicated to the applicant in the year following the decision rendered in Saraswat's case, it was done belatedly, only after the applicant had retired. 7.9 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 time. The instructions related to the revision of the benchmark are applicable prospectively from the date of their issuance. 7.10. 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 is a legal right that has accrued to him not only by virtue of the clarifications dated 01.11.2010 and the OM dated 04.10.2012, but also due to the 17 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 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 applicant's service conditions. The clarification issued by the DoPT, in fact, nullifies the defense raised by the respondents that the applicant was 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. 7.11 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."18
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 8. CONCLUSION
8.1 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 "Good" for the immediately preceding five years shall be treated as "Very Good" in terms of the clarification dated 04.10.2012. 8.2 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."
8.3 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. 19
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 8.4 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?
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?
20
Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 This issue is left open, as it also depends on the facts of the individual case.
8.5 The impugned order(s) passed by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside. 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-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 applicant by revising his 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 shall be entitled to interest at GPF rates for the 21 Item No.82/ Court-4 O.A. No.1224/2024 delayed period till the date of actual payment. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sb/