Rajagopal.P.T. vs Union Of India & Ors.

HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Briefly speaking the factual matrix is as follows – The applicant is a retired Superintendent of the Passport Office, Kozhikode. He had superannuated from service on 30.04.2025. He is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to consider and grant him the benefit of the 3^rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) with effect fom 01.12.2018.

The applicant commenced his service under the respondents on 01.12.1988 as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) appointed through a regular process of selection, but on casual basis. He was regularized during the year 1997 prospectively against which he and some others approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1557/1998. It is submitted that based on the directions in the said O.A, they were deemed to have been regularly appointed from the date of their initial appointment ie., in the case of the applicant with effect from 01.12.1988.

The applicant has to subsequently litigate for the benefit of the financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme by filing O.A.No.523/2004. The said O.A was allowed declaring that he was entitled to be granted the benefits under the ACP Scheme counting the service with effect from 01.12.1988 as regular for the purpose of financial upgradations. Consequently he was granted the 1^st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 01.12.2000. Similarly for the benefit of 2^nd financial upgradation under the MACPS also he had to litigate by filing O.A.No.180/623/2015. The Tribunal by order dated 12.07.2016 once again declared that his service from 01.12.1988 to be treated as regular service and directing the 2^nd respondent to grant the benefit of 2^nd financial upgradation under the MACPS with effect from 01.12.2008, ie., on completion of 20 years from the date of his initial appointment. The said order is produced as Annexure A-1. The Annexure A-1 order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) No.313/2016 vide its judgment dated 08.12.2016. The same is produced as Annexure A-2. The Annexure A-2 judgment was taken up by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Dy. No.18309/2017 which was dismissed in limine by an order dated 21.07.2017. This is produced as Annexure A-3. Subsequently Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 orders were implemented by the respondents on 06.09.2017, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-4. In this order the applicant is at Sl.No.3 and was granted the 2^nd financial upgradation under the MACPS with effect from 01.12.2008.

It is submitted that he was consequently became due for the 3^rd financial upgradtion with effect from 01.12.2018. However, the respondents have taken the stand that the benefit of the 3^rd financial upgradation cannot be granted to him on the ground that the earlier financial upgradations were granted only on account of judicial decisions in his favour and not otherwise. Further, one of the party to the earlier round of litigations ie., Smt.P.Sivarani also got an order in her favour in O.A.180/435/2018 dated 31.05.2023 and was granted the 2^nd financial upgradation on that basis. The order in O.A.No.180/435/2018 dated 31.05.2023 is produced as Annexure A-5.

It is further submitted that the applicant had filed a representation seeking grant of the 3^rd financial upgradation under the MACPS with effect from 01.12.2018 and the same was also recommended from the office of the 3^rd respondent by communication dated 07.02.2019. This representation is produced as Annexure A-6. It is stated that the 3^rd financial upgradation was to be in Level 7 of the Pay Matrix. However, despite the Annexure A-6 and recommendations from the 3^rd respondent's office, the respondents did not grant him the benefit of the 3^rd financial upgradation under the MACPS on the ground that the issue was under the consideration of the Ministry and clarification is awaited from the DoP&T. The applicant submitted that although he was not promoted as Superintendent which was in Level 7 of the Pay Matrix on the ground of non convening of DPC and seniority issue, he was however, directed to hold the charge of the higher post of Superintendent/Passport Granting Officer by letter dated 25.04.2023. This is produced as Annexure A-7.

While so, the applicant was promoted as Assistant Superintendent and later as Superintendent with effect from 01.01.2024. He submitted a representation dated 10.05.2025 requesting the respondents to grant him the benefit of the 3^rd financial upgradation with effect from 01.12.2018 in Level 7 of the Pay Matrix. This is produced as Annexure A-8. Since there was no response to Annexure A-8, he submitted one more representation dated 03.10.2025 which was also not responded. This is produced as Annexure A-9. The failure on the part of the respondents to take a decision, he was compelled to approach this Tribunal by filing this O.A seeking the following reliefs -

While the entire arguments seems to be framed around the date of actual appointment to service of the applicant and the date of commencement of the regular service of the applicant, which has already been declared by the Tribunal and upheld right upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court, a perusal of the Annexure A-8 representation reveals the following -

The claim of the applicant is that he is due for the 3^rd financial upgradation under the MACPS as on 01.12.2018 in PB-2 + GP Rs.4600/-ie., in Level 7 of the Pay Matrix. If we go to the MACP Scheme itself, which is produced as Annexure R-1, the Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and Grade Pay as given in Section I, Part-A of the first schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Thus, the Grade Pay at the time of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme can, in certain cases where regular promotion is not between two successive grades, be different than what is available at the time of regular promotion. In such cases, the higher grade pay attached to the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the concerned cadre/organization will be given only at the time of regular promotion. Para 5 of the Scheme states promotions earned/upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS.

It has been argued at great length that the illustration given in para 28 (B) would be applicable in this particular instance. It reads as under -

The fundamental principle underlying the MACP Scheme is that any individual can get the benefit of three promotions or financial upgradations during the course of his career counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service respectively. Financial upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay. While the question has been framed in terms of the challenge to the date of regular appointment which has been fixed as on 01.12.1988 and consequential grant of 1^st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 01.12.2000 and 2^nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.12.2008 through multiple litigations and the failure of the respondents to acknowledge the lis and refuse to grant further benefit of 3^rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme on completion of 30 years of service, what this Tribunal needs to examine now is a very different question. As per the terms of Annexure A-6, the date of initial appointment is shown as 01.12.1988, the date of promotion/1^st MACP is shown as 01.12.2000 (ACP), date of promotion as UDC is shown as 27.11.2008, date of promotion/2^nd MACP is shown as 01.12.2008 (MACP), date of promotion as Assistant Superintendent is shown as 01.04.2017. This is shown along with the data of some colleagues who have been granted 2^nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. However, these are in two different scales effectively granting 3^rd financial upgradation on 01.12.2018 in the scale of Superintendent in GP Rs.4600/- which would imply that the promotion as Assistant Superintendent is not counted for the purpose of determining the financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, which is impermissible. Three upgradations during the course of career would be the 1^st ACP which is subsumed his first promotion as UDC and 2^nd MACP which was to the next grade and his promotion as Assistant Superintendent which was in a higher grade from the upgradation in the 2^nd MACP. This being 3^rd financial upgradation/promotion which is being granted during the course of his career it would indicate that the applicant will not be eligible for any further financial upgradation and any further benefit would be on the basis of actual promotion which he has enjoyed in terms of his regular promotion as Superintendent in Level 7 on 01.01.2024.

In the light of the above, the O.A fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.