Case Background
This case arises from a long service career in the Postal Department and a dispute over financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme.
The employee, a postal official, was initially appointed as Postal Assistant on 01.03.1975. Over the years, he received several upgradations in his service. He was granted Higher Selection Grade-II with effect from 26.06.1993 by order dated 16.09.1994. He was then given Lower Selection Grade on 07.03.1995 with effect from 17.06.1988. Later, he was extended BCR (Biennial Cadre Review) and TBOP (Time Bound One Promotion) benefits in the Lower Selection Grade with effect from 17.05.2000.
As on 17.05.2000, he was in the pay scale of Rs. 5000–8000, which was revised on 30.03.2001 to Rs. 6500–10,500. On 13.11.2009, he received upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. 7450–11,500, along with a revised pay of Rs. 9300–34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600, effective from 01.01.2006.
Thereafter, on 14.06.2013, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Recruitment). He then retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2014.
In the meantime, the MACP Scheme for Central Government civilian employees was introduced by Official Memorandum dated 18.09.2009, effective from 01.09.2008.
Feeling aggrieved that he was not granted higher grade pays and full MACP benefits, the employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 341 of 2012. The CAT, by order dated 28.07.2016, partly allowed his claim by granting him the benefit of a third MACP.
The employee then filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 9414 of 2017 before the Patna High Court challenging the CAT’s refusal to fully accept his claims, particularly his demand for certain higher grade pays. On the other hand, the Union of India and Postal Department filed CWJC No. 3129 of 2017 challenging the part of the same CAT order that had granted the third MACP to the employee.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, heard both writ petitions together. The oral judgment was delivered on 03.01.2023 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri.
The core dispute before the Patna High Court was whether the employee was entitled to the first, second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme, and whether the CAT was right in granting him the third MACP.
Before the CAT, the employee had sought quashing of orders dated 17.02.2012 and 26.03.2012 (Annexure-A/7 and A/9 in the original application). He had also prayed for a direction to grant Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 with effect from 01.01.2006, and thereafter Grade Pay of Rs. 6600, Rs. 7600 and Rs. 8700 with effect from 01.09.2008 under the MACP Scheme.
Additionally, he claimed that under normal replacement, he should have been granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 and Rs. 5400 instead of Rs. 4600 from 01.01.2006, followed by Grade Pay of Rs. 6600, Rs. 7600 and Rs. 8700 as financial upgradations under MACP. He also sought all consequential benefits, including revision and fixation of pay with arrears and statutory interest.
The Tribunal, after considering his service record, partly allowed the original application by extending the third MACP benefit to him. It did not accept all of his demands, but granted him the third financial upgradation.
In the High Court, the Postal Department argued that the Tribunal had erred in extending the third MACP to the employee. It contended that the MACP Scheme has a clear criterion: financial upgradation is admissible only when an employee has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay. The department argued that this condition was not satisfied.
The High Court examined the Official Memorandum dated 18.09.2009 containing the MACP Scheme and its salient features, including paragraph 1 of Annexure-I and the illustration at paragraph 28 of the Scheme. The Scheme provides that there shall be three financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, and that financial upgradation will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay.
The employee’s counsel tried to argue that the illustration in paragraph 28 dealt with the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), whereas the employee was a Postal Assistant, which he claimed was equivalent to Upper Division Clerk (UDC). Therefore, according to him, the illustration should not strictly apply to his case.
However, the High Court noted that no material had been produced to prove that the post of Postal Assistant is equivalent to UDC. It further held that, in any case, the core principle behind the illustration was what mattered. The Scheme is grade-pay based, and financial upgradation depends on the time spent in a particular grade pay.
The Court observed that the employee first entered the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 with effect from 01.01.2006 (though notified on 13.11.2009) when his pay was revised to Rs. 9300–34,800. Before completing 10 years in this grade pay, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Recruitment) on 14.06.2013 and retired on 31.01.2014.
The Court held that this crucial information about his promotion and retirement, and his not having completed 10 years in the same grade pay, was not properly taken into account by the CAT while granting the third MACP. Therefore, the High Court found that the Tribunal had committed an error in extending the third MACP benefit.
The Court also considered whether the employee could claim the first and second MACP benefits. It carefully reviewed his service history and noted that he had already received several upgradations before the MACP Scheme came into force.
He had been granted Higher Selection Grade with effect from 26.06.1993, Lower Selection Grade with effect from 17.06.1988, and BCR/TBOP with effect from 17.05.2000. For the first time, he entered the grade pay system only on 01.01.2006. On this basis, the Court held that he was not entitled to first and second MACP, in view of paragraph 1 of the salient features of the MACP Scheme, because the Scheme counts financial upgradations from the direct entry grade and requires 10 years in the same grade pay.
The Court further noted that, on reading the entire MACP Scheme, nowhere is it stated that upgradation does not amount to promotion for purposes of MACP. In other words, the upgradations the employee had already received during his career could not be ignored to grant him further MACP benefits.
The High Court concluded that at no point was the employee stagnating in a single post or grade pay for about 10 years. From 01.09.2008 onwards, he did not complete 10 years of service in any post, including as Assistant Director (Recruitment), because he retired on 31.01.2014. Therefore, there was no basis to grant him any MACP benefit—neither first, nor second, nor third.
In view of these findings, the Court held that the Postal Department (Union of India) had made out a case to interfere with the CAT’s order. The order of the CAT dated 28.07.2016 in O.A. No. 341 of 2012 was set aside. Consequently, CWJC No. 3129 of 2017 filed by the Union of India-Postal Department was allowed, and CWJC No. 9414 of 2017 filed by the employee was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for postal and other Central Government employees in Bihar and across India who seek MACP benefits.
First, the Patna High Court has reinforced that MACP is strictly linked to grade pay and the period of 10 years’ continuous service in the same grade pay. It is not enough merely to have completed a certain number of years in service overall.
Second, the Court has clarified that earlier upgradations such as Higher Selection Grades, BCR and TBOP cannot be ignored. Employees who have already moved up through such upgradations and promotions cannot automatically claim MACP on top of these, unless they meet the specific criteria of the Scheme.
Third, the decision underscores that tribunals and authorities must carefully consider service records, dates of upgradations, promotions and introduction of the Scheme before granting financial upgradations. If an employee has not remained in a single grade pay for 10 continuous years, MACP cannot be granted.
For employees nearing retirement, this judgment highlights that if they receive a promotion soon after entering a new grade pay and retire within 10 years, they cannot claim MACP for that period.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the postal employee was entitled to first, second and third MACP benefits under the MACP Scheme dated 18.09.2009.
Answer: No. The Court held that he had already received various upgradations and promotion, entered the grade pay only from 01.01.2006, and did not complete 10 years in the same grade pay. Hence, he was not entitled to any MACP benefits. - Issue: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in granting the third MACP to the employee.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court set aside the CAT’s order, holding that it failed to consider that the employee had been promoted on 14.06.2013 and had not completed 10 years in a single grade pay after 01.09.2008.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No specific prior judgments or case law are cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9414 of 2017 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3129 of 2017
Case Title (CWJC No. 9414 of 2017): J. P. Mandal vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Title (CWJC No. 3129 of 2017): Union of India & Ors. vs. J. P. Mandal
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Citation: 2023 (1) PLJR 767
Advocates (CWJC No. 9414 of 2017): For the petitioner: Mr. M. P. Dixit, Advocate; Mr. S. K. Dixit, Advocate; Mr. S. K. Choubey, Advocate; Mrs. Swastika, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Central Government Counsel.
Advocates (CWJC No. 3129 of 2017): For the petitioners (Union of India and Postal Department): Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Central Government Counsel. For the respondent (employee): Mr. M. P. Dixit, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under Civil Writ Jurisdiction challenging and defending an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in service and pay fixation matter relating to MACP benefits.
Date of Judgment: 03.01.2023
Result: CWJC No. 3129 of 2017 (filed by Union of India-Postal Department) allowed; CWJC No. 9414 of 2017 (filed by the employee) dismissed; CAT’s order dated 28.07.2016 in O.A. No. 341 of 2012 set aside.
Judgement Link; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM5MTcjMjAxOCMxI04=—ak1–qGoFoAqY9c=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
