Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Saini vs Commerce on 7 May, 2026
1
Item No.66(C-V)
O.A. No.3006/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3006/2024
Order reserved on : 04.02.2026
Order pronounced on: 07.05.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Sh. Rakesh Saini (age around 60.5 years),
S/o late Sh Lajpat Rai Saini,
R/o E-54, Ayudh, Plot No.3,
Sector-13, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
2. Sh. D.V.S. Prasad (age around 61 years),
S/o Damaraju Veerabhadram,
R/o Flat No.3, Door No, 10-68/4,
Parvati Palace, Visalakshi Nagar,
Vishakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh-530043
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Ranbir Singh Sandhu)
Versus
Union of India through
2. its Secretary,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food & Public Distribution,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-ll0001
RACHNA KAPOOR
Digitally signed by 2. Director General camp Office,
National Test House
RACHNA KAPOOR
Kamala Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad-201002
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Dilbagh Singh)
2
Item No.66(C-V)
O.A. No.3006/2024
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
The applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-
"(a) to quash and set aside the Impugned Order No. Est HQ-MACP/1/2024-Admin-HQ dated 20.06.2024 issued by the Office of Director General, NTH regarding not considering representations of the applicants for 3rd Financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme;
(b) to direct the Respondents to consider applicants for 3rd Up-gradation under MACP Scheme and issue orders to the Respondents in view of the Order issued by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in OA No 2291/2022 ; OA No. 1019 and OA No. 1020 of 2013 and the Judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Union of India Versus Smt S Geethanjali;
(c) To allow the OA with exemplary costs;
(d) To pass such other direction or directions order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice."
RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants joined the National Test House (NTH) under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs as Scientist-B on 29.02.2000 (applicant No.1) and on 09.05.2000 3 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 (applicant No.2). They were promoted as Scientist-C, through Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) on 05.04.2006 (applicant No.2) and 12.07.2006 (applicant No.1). Further, the applicants were granted in-situ promotion as Scientist-D vide letters dated 06.03.2012 and 19.03.2012.
3. During the tenure of their service, the applicants earned two financial upgradations on 12.07.2006 and 06.03.2012 respectively after their direct entry in 2000 as Scientists-B through UPSC. They completed ten years of regular service as Scientist-D on 06.03.2022 and thus were entitled for MACP to level- 13 after completion of 10 years of service in the level 12 (Scientist-D), however, the same is denied to them by the respondents. Thereafter, the applicants made representations to the respondents dated 10.11.2021, 18.04.2023, 25.09.2023 and 25.09.2023, however, those were rejected by the respondents on 20.06.2024, relying upon the DoP&T OM dated Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR 13.03.2024.
RACHNA KAPOOR
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in NTH, FCS is applicable from Scientist-B (Level-
10) to Scientist-C (Level-11) and from Scientist-C 4 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 (Level-11) to Scientist-D (Level-12). After a Scientist gets upgraded to the post of Scientist-D and in absence of further promotion in FCS, he or she goes out the purview of the clauses of the FCS, as stipulated in DoP&T OM No. AB14017/37/2008-Estt (RR) dated 10.09.2010. Therefore, the Scientist-D will face the stagnation and frustration on the said post, as they do not have any chance to appear before the Assessment Board or becoming Scientist-E. However, many other similar organizations have the implementation of the said scheme upto Scientist-G level. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that DoP&T has clarified to grant MACP Scheme, which is applicable to all Central Government employees, after Scientist-D in its OM dated 10.09.2010 provided level of Scientist-E exists in the organization. The respondents have misinterpreted the term level of Scientist-E exists in NTH, viz, applicants' department in the form of Director in pay RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by level-13 which is just above Scientist-D in pay level- RACHNA KAPOOR
12. Therefore, the applicants also find support from the DoP&T OM No. AB-14017/35/2011-Estt (RR) dated 23.09.2011. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that if the Scientists have not got 5 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 promotion under FCS, for whatever reasons, they shall be eligible for financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, and submitted that the said organization has identical RRs to that of NTH. The said department has granted 3rd financial upgradation under MACP scheme from level 12 to level 13 to nineteen Scientists-D in 2019 and 2021 Scientist-D in 2016. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted the two Government organizations having exactly similar RRs cannot have different MACP guidelines.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 2291/2022. He further relied upon the order of the Bengaluru Bench of the RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by Tribunal in OA No.1019/2013 & OA No.1020/2013 in RACHNA KAPOOR which it is held that "We are of the view that the stand of the respondents that MACP shall not be applicable to the persons who came under the Flexible Complimenting Scheme is totally incorrect especially in 6 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 terms of the modified Flexible Complementing Scheme following the 5th CPC recommendations."
7. The said order dated 08.01.2016 is stated to be upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 13.02.2017 in WP(C) No.61691-92/2016.
8. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the MACP is expected to provide an alternate channel for development of Scientists and to maintain the rigors of assessment required for assessment under the FCS.
9. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed their counter reply opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the applicants have been granted two financial upgradations under the FCS. Since the applicants do not fulfil the requisite criteria of DOP&T guidelines of "Not qualifying for FCS for three (03) successive years"
issued vide OM dated 13.03.2024, they cannot be Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR granted 3rd financial upgradation. Learned counsel RACHNA KAPOOR for the respondents submitted that the representations preferred by the applicants were examined by DoCA and it was observed that the grant of MACP to the Scientists of NTH by relaxing 7 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 provisions of DOP&T guidelines was applicable to the specific applicants of OA No.2291/2022 and the same cannot be taken as a precedent in all the cases seeking grant of MACP. In view of the DOP&T OM dated 10.09.2010, since only two levels for promotion are available i.e. Scientist C and D, for granting MACP from Scientist D, the post of Scientist E is required to exist in the organisation and in the absence of the same, MACP cannot be extended at the pay level of Scientist E.
10. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents are wrongly relying upon the DOP&T guidelines on revised FCS dated 13.03.2024. He submitted that the applicants completed 10 years of service on 06.03.2020 to be eligible for MACP and even if the aforesaid DOP&T OM is taken into consideration, para 3 of the same says that it will be effective from 01.07.2024 whereas the applicants were due for MACP on 06.03.2022. RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by Therefore, these revised guidelines are not applicable RACHNA KAPOOR to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.2291/2022 and OA No.1020/2013 are fully applicants to the applicants.
8Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024
11. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the pleadings, documents and judgments placed on record. The core question for adjudication before this Tribunal is whether the applicants, who are Scientists-D (Pay Level-12) at the National Test House (NTH) under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, are entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme upon completion of 10 years of continuous service in Pay Level-12, in the absence of a post of Scientist-E in NTH.
12. Before examining the rival contentions, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the undisputed facts. The applicants joined NTH as Scientist-B (Pay Level-
10) in the year 2000 through direct recruitment via UPSC. They were promoted to Scientist-C (Pay Level-
11) through the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) in 2006, and thereafter granted in-situ promotion as Scientist-D (Pay Level-12) in the year Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR 2012. During their service career, they received their RACHNA KAPOOR 1st and 2nd financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme in the years 2006 and 2012 respectively. Upon completion of 10 years of regular service as Scientist-D on 06.03.2022, the applicants became due 9 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 for the 3rd financial upgradation from Pay Level-12 to Pay Level-13 under the MACP Scheme. Their representations dated 10.11.2021, 18.04.2023 and 25.09.2023 were rejected by the respondents vide impugned order No. Est HQ-MACP/1/2024-Admin- HQ dated 20.06.2024, primarily relying upon the DoP&T OM dated 13.03.2024, citing that the applicants do not satisfy the criterion of "not qualifying for FCS for three successive years."
13. The MACP Scheme, introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, was operationalized through DoP&T OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009. The Scheme provides for three financial upgradations to the next higher Pay Level in the Pay Matrix upon completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service, where no promotion has been received during that period. The Scheme was designed as a welfare measure to mitigate career stagnation and Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR provide financial relief to Central Government RACHNA KAPOOR employees who are unable to progress through regular promotions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.K. Dubey, (2011) 12 SCC 257, while interpreting the ACP Scheme (the predecessor to 10 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 MACP), held that such career progression schemes must be interpreted in a manner consistent with their underlying purpose, which is to ameliorate the hardship of stagnation, and that a restrictive interpretation that defeats the very object of the scheme cannot be countenanced.
14. The respondents' principal defence rests on two pillars: first, that the DoP&T OM dated 10.09.2010 stipulates that for granting MACP beyond Scientist- D, the post of Scientist-E must exist in the organisation, and since NTH does not have the post of Scientist-E, the 3rd MACP cannot be granted; and second, that the revised DOP&T OM dated 13.03.2024 requires that the applicants must have "not qualified for FCS for three successive years" to be eligible for MACP, which condition the applicants do not fulfil. We shall address both contentions seriatim.
Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR
15. On the first contention regarding the necessity of RACHNA KAPOOR the post of Scientist-E existing in NTH, we are unable to accept the stand of the respondents. The MACP Scheme, as clarified repeatedly by DoP&T, is a pay- level linked scheme and not a post-linked scheme. 11 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 Financial upgradation under MACP is granted to the next higher Pay Level in the Pay Matrix, irrespective of whether a corresponding promotional post exists in the organisational hierarchy. This distinction is fundamental and has been consistently upheld by Courts and Tribunals. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2291/2022 titled Kedar Nath Mishra Vs Consumer Affairs specifically held, in the context of NTH Scientists, that the MACP Scheme cannot be denied solely on the ground of non- existence of a promotional post. The same view was affirmed by the Bengaluru Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1019/2013 titled Smt. S. Vijayamma Vs. Union of India & Ors. and OA No. 1020/2013 titled Smt. S. Geethanjali Vs. Union of India & Ors., both dated 08.01.2016, wherein it was categorically held that the position of the respondents that MACP shall not be applicable to persons who came under the Flexible Complementing Scheme is "totally RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by incorrect especially in terms of the modified Flexible RACHNA KAPOOR Complementing Scheme following the 5th CPC recommendations." This finding was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 13.02.2017 in WP(C) No. 61691-92/2016, which were filed against 12 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 the aforesaid orders of the Bengaluru Bench. The respondents have failed to place any contrary judgment before this Tribunal to dislodge this consistent line of authority.
16. Furthermore, the contention of the respondents that the post of Scientist-E does not exist in NTH and, therefore, MACP cannot be extended to Pay Level-13 is factually and legally misconceived. The learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out, and it has not been controverted by the respondents that the post of Director in NTH exists at Pay Level- 13, which is the very next level above Scientist-D at Pay Level-12. The DoP&T OM dated 23.09.2011 (No. AB-14017/35/2011-Estt.(RR)) makes it clear that for the purposes of MACP, what is relevant is the existence of the next higher Pay Level in the organisation, not necessarily a post bearing the designation of "Scientist-E." The respondents have, RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by therefore, misinterpreted the OM dated 10.09.2010 RACHNA KAPOOR by reading it in isolation and contrary to the clarificatory OM dated 23.09.2011. It is no more res integra that administrative circulars and OMs must be read harmoniously, and that a later clarificatory 13 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 circular must be given effect to over an earlier, ambiguous one.
17. The argument of the respondents that the relaxation of DOP&T guidelines in OA No. 2291/2022 was specific to that case and cannot be treated as a precedent, is equally untenable. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2291/2022 examined the identical issue in the context of NTH Scientists, and the ratio of that decision operates as binding precedent upon this Bench. It is a well- settled principle that a Tribunal must maintain consistency in its decisions and that deviating from a co-ordinate Bench decision without referring the matter to a larger bench would be an irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247 held that:
"33. As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view expressed in Devilal RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by case Election Petition No. 9 of 1980 it would have been proper, to maintain judicial RACHNA KAPOOR discipline, to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than to take a different view. We note it with regret and distress that the said course was not followed. It is well-settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of "different arguments"
or otherwise, on a question of law, it is 14 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs.
34. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we wish to recall what was opined in Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator-General Of West Bengal . AIR 1960 SC 936, (1960) 3 SCR 578:
"If one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing, it is the quality of certainty. That quality would totally disappear if Judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling one another's decisions. If one Division Bench of a High Court is unable to distinguish a previous decision of another Division Bench, and holding the view that the earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that view the result would be utter confusion. The position would be equally bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decision of another Single Judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench. In such a case lawyers would not know how to advise their clients and all courts subordinate to the High Court would find themselves in an embarrassing position of having to choose between dissentient judgments of their own High Court."
RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by 35. These salutary principles appear to have been overlooked by the learned Judge RACHNA KAPOOR deciding Jai Bhansingh case."
18. The respondents cannot selectively apply Tribunal orders to some Scientists while denying the 15 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 same benefit to others who are identically situated. Such differential treatment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.
19. The comparative example of the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, which has identical Recruitment Rules to those of NTH, is instructive. It is on record that CGWB has granted the 3rd financial upgradation from Pay Level-12 to Pay Level-13 to nineteen Scientists-D in 2019 and 2021. The denial of the same benefit to the applicants of NTH, who are governed by identical service conditions and Recruitment Rules, amounts to hostile and arbitrary discrimination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130, held that classification among employees for the purposes of service benefits must be founded on an intelligible RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by differentia which has a rational nexus with the object RACHNA KAPOOR sought to be achieved, and that arbitrary differentiation between identically placed employees offends Article 14 of the Constitution. No such rational basis has been demonstrated by the 16 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 respondents for treating NTH Scientists differently from their counterparts in CGWB.
20. On the second contention regarding the applicability of the revised DOP&T OM dated 13.03.2024, we find that the applicants' rejoinder is well-founded. It is undisputed that the applicants completed 10 years of service as Scientist-D on 06.03.2022, making them due for the 3rd MACP on that date. The DoP&T OM dated 13.03.2024, even if it were to be treated as governing the eligibility conditions for MACP in conjunction with FCS, explicitly states in para 3 thereof that it shall be effective from 01.07.2024. The applicants' entitlement to the 3rd MACP having crystallized on 06.03.2022 -- more than two years prior to the effective date of the said OM -- the revised guidelines cannot be applied retrospectively to their detriment. It is a cardinal principle of service jurisprudence that RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by beneficial service rules operate prospectively, but RACHNA KAPOOR where an employee's right has already accrued prior to the amendment, the amended provisions cannot be applied to extinguish that vested right. The impugned order dated 20.06.2024, which applied the 17 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 OM dated 13.03.2024 to defeat a right that had already accrued to the applicants on 06.03.2022, is, therefore, legally unsustainable.
21. We also take note of the fact that the FCS in NTH is operational only from Scientist-B (Level-10) to Scientist-C (Level-11) and from Scientist-C (Level-11) to Scientist-D (Level-12). Once a Scientist reaches the grade of Scientist-D, there is no further FCS available to them in NTH, as there is no Assessment Board or mechanism for progression to Scientist-E under the FCS. In the absence of any avenue for further career advancement through FCS, it would be manifestly unjust and contrary to the spirit of the MACP Scheme to deny financial upgradation under MACP on the ground that the applicants have not "failed to qualify for FCS for three successive years,"
when in fact no opportunity for FCS itself exists at that level. The condition of "not qualifying for FCS for three successive years" as a prerequisite for MACP Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR was designed to address situations where an RACHNA KAPOOR employee was repeatedly assessed and found unfit for promotion -- it was never intended to be applied against an employee to whom no such assessment opportunity was ever made available. Imposing such 18 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 a condition in the present circumstances would reduce it to an impossible standard, and the law does not demand the impossible: lex non cogit ad impossibilia. This principle was recognized and applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala (2007) 4 SCC 1.
22. We also find merit in the submission that the MACP Scheme is intended to provide an alternate channel for the career development of Scientists and to compensate for the rigours of assessment under the FCS. To deny MACP to Scientists who have stagnated at the Scientist-D level for over 10 years, with no prospect of either FCS promotion or MACP, would wholly defeat the remedial purpose of the Scheme and result in complete career stagnation -- a result which neither the Government nor the Courts have sanctioned.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR considered opinion that:
RACHNA KAPOOR
(i) The applicants are entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme from Pay Level-12 to Pay Level-13 with effect from 06.03.2022, 19 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 upon completion of 10 years of regular service as Scientist-D;
(ii) The impugned order No. Est HQ-MACP/1/2024-
Admin-HQ dated 20.06.2024 issued by the Office of the Director General, NTH, is hereby quashed and set aside;
(iii) The respondents are directed to consider the applicants for the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the light of the observations made hereinabove, in conformity with the orders of this Tribunal in OA No. 2291/2022 and the Bengaluru Bench in OA Nos. 1019/2013 and 1020/2013, and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WPs(C) No. 61691-92/2016, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;
RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by (iv) The respondents shall also compute and pay all RACHNA KAPOOR consequential monetary benefits arising from the 3rd MACP upgradation with effect from 06.03.2022, subject to the applicants fulfilling all other prescribed 20 Item No.66(C-V) O.A. No.3006/2024 procedural requirements, within the said period of three months.
24. All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr.Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
„rk‟
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR