Petition in CAT Tribunal Chandigarh for MACP Scheme

The present case talks about MACP scheme that allows three financial upgradations in the career of a Central Government Employee. Counting for upgradation under MACPS starts from the direct entry grade on completion of 10,20, 30 years services respectively. Under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, three Financial Up-gradations are allowed on completion of 10, 20. 30 years of regular service, or 10 years of continuous service in the same level in Pay Matrix, counted from the direct entry grade.

Difference between MACP & ACP

Initially ACP was introduced by Government of India in 1998 which assure minimum two promotion or if not granted then two financial upgradation to any individual Central Government employees. MACP is updated or Modified scheme introduced by Central government as per recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commision.

MACP under Promotion

Promotions earned/upgradation granted under the MACP Scheme in the past to those grades which are in the same Level in the Pay Matrix due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Seventh Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS

Central Government Employees Pay Fixation on Promotion Method

The fixation of pay in the case of promotion from one Grade Pay to another Grade Pay is required to be done by granting one incrementation equal to 3 per cent of the sum of the Pay in the Pay Band and the existing Grade Pay of the particular post will be computed and rounded off to next multiple of 10, as per Rule 13 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008

Pay Fixation Method

Pay in the Pay Band will be fixed by adding the Basic Pay applicable on the later date, the Dearness Pay applicable on that date and the pre-revised Dearness allowance based on rates applicable as on 01.01.2006. This figure will be rounded off to the next multiple of 19 and will then become the Pay in the applicable Pay Band. In addition to this, the Grade Pay Corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale will be payable.

Where the Government servant in receipt of special pay or non-practising allowance, the methodology followed will be as prescribed in Rule 7(i), (B), (C) or (D) as applicable, except that the basic pay and dearness pay to be taken into account will be the basic pay and dearness pay applicable as on that date but dearness allowance will be calculated as per rates applicable on 1.1.2006

Now benchmark in APAR for grant of MACP after 7th Pay Commission has been revised to “Very Good”. After implementation of 7th Pay Commission, financial upgradation under MACP is granted by providing one increment in the existing pay level and placing to equal or next higher pay in the next higher level of pay matrix.

You might check your increase through this MACP Pay Fixation Tool (Post 7^th CPC) here.

Judgment Digest on P K Sarin vs Central Public Works Division on 20 November, 2018

The present post is discussing the issue of granting of MACP Scheme as launched and effected in year 2009 which considers five Annual Communication Reports (ACRs) prior to the launch as well as upto the service continued by the applicant. Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) are central government employees’ scheme which permits financial upgradations to every employee starting from the direct entry of the employee on completion of his 10, 20 and 30 years of services respectively. But these MACPs can be denied by the government in case of below bench mark ACRs and in the present case the same issue is raised by the respondents that the ACRs of the applicant is below benchmark and thus he cannot be granted the third MACP. Earlier there were no such criteria for giving a below benchmark unless to convey adverse remarks in ACRs. Therefore, the applicant has filed original application three times in 2015, 2016 and 2017 before the Tribunal for claiming his third MACP from the respondents duly.
The case was regarding issuing of third MACPs to the applicant as he had completed 30 years of services on 2.8.2006 and thus he was claiming for financial upgradation in his salary and the normal course of MACPs was considered in the year 2009 and the ACRs of 2002-03 to 2006-07 of the applicant were taken into consideration before allowing him his third MACP. But due to certain issues, the ratings of applicant’s ACRs were not upto the mark and hence the respondents marked the applicant “unfit” for the MACP as his working grade was not fulfilling the required standards. The applicant was given the tag of below benchmark ACRs from the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) which led to cancellation of his third MACP. Thus, the applicant had to resort to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh with the prayer to quash the order of Review Committee and grant him his third MACP along with all other benefits of arrears arising out of the same from the respondents.

Also Read- Latest judgment of Supreme Court on the topic of MACP

Facts of the case-

Court’s Name- CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH

Appellant-

K. Sarin,

S/o Shri S.N. Sarin,

234, Sector 4,

Mansa Devi Complex,

Panchkula, Haryana, Pincode: 134114

Respondent-

Union of India through its Secretary,

Ministry of Urban

Development, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 011

Directorate General of Works,

C.P.W.D. Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 011.

Date of decision: 20.11.2018

Reserved on: 30.10.2018

Timeline of events-

04.1991 to 27.01.2003- Suspension period of applicant
07.2006- second MACP of applicant was allowed
09.2008- third MACP of applicant was due from respective date
4.2010- OM was issued by DOPT for below bench marks ACRs
8.2014- applicant has continued his service till this date
04.2016- minutes of Screening Committee were recorded
03.2017- OA No. 060/00331/2017 was disposed

Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

Petitioner’s Arguments-

The applicant, namely P K Sarin joined as an employee in the respondent’s department as a Junior Engineer and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. But the applicant got involved in a criminal case and was suspended in 1991 and he was finally acquitted in 2002 and reinstated to his services. The period of his suspension was of 12 years from 29.04.1991 to 27.01.2003, but this duration was considered as his duty period for all intents and purposes. The applicant had applied for his second as well as third MACP and he was allowed his second MACP with effect from 01.07.2006 but his third MACP was pending and due from 01.09.2008 which was denied on the grounds of below benchmark ACRs. Thus, the applicant was opposing the recommendation of the Review Committee for his 3^rd MACP by filing his Original Application No. 060/00144/2015, but the application was disposed on grounds that he was not eligible for the claim of third MACP with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600 and the claim is to be considered on yearly basis in 2010 and thereafter.

The applicant had completed his 30 years of service on 2.8.2006 and the MACPs were circulated in 2009, so the ACRs from the period of 2002-03 to 2006-07 was to be taken into account. As the applicant was suspended in 2002-03 and the year 2004-05 also finds no ACR recorded in the name of applicant. Hence, the Screening Committee considered the earlier ACR of applicant which was period prior to his suspension i.e. 1989-90 and 1990-91. It was objected by the applicant that the last 10 years should only be taken into account for calculating the ACRs but the Committee had no other option but to go for years 1989-90 and 1990-91 due to his suspended period. The DOPT issued OM regarding the below benchmark ACR of applicant after noting the gradings in the ACRs for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and applicant was not entitled for the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600. Hence, the OA of 2015 was disposed.

Also Read- Assured Career Progression Scheme

The applicant then filed another OA No. 835/2016 which was allowed and the respondents were directed to organize a review meeting of the Screening Committee and shall reconsider the applicant’s matter of granting 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 1.4.2014and if he is found fit, he shall be given all benefits of arrears arising out of same and will be enabled interest at GPF deposit rate for the period starting from 1.4.2014 till actual date of grant of arrears and all these benefits should be extended within 8 weeks from date of this order. Although, the claim of 3^rd MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 was rejected, because as per the previous order of 2015, the respondents had to consider the ACRs of applicant on yearly basis and as per the direction of the Tribunal a Screening Committee was appointed for the case of applicant and found him unfit in 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14.

The applicant then filed another OA No. 060/00331/2017, current application for quashing the order of 2016 which declares the applicant unfit from 2009-2012. The applicant wanted the 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and thus, the ACRs of previous 5 years will be taken into account. Out of the 5 ACRs, the ACR of 2008-09 is not available and the other two have “Very Good” rating and other two have “Good” rating. Before the suspension period, if ACR of 1990-91 is taken into record, it has “Good” rating. But the prayer of applicant for getting his MACP w.e.f. 01.04.2009 is not justified and rated below benchmark and looking into the previous order of 2016, he was declared unfit after rating the ACRs from 2009-2014. As the applicant has approached the Tribunal thrice for the same matter, the tribunal would give him another chance and direct the respondents to order the Screening Committee to review applicant’s case again for his 3^rdfinancial upgradation and the members of Committee were Director General, CPWD (Chairman), Additional Director General (member) and Chief Engineer (member secretary) and their decision was submitted with Affidavit to the Tribunal.

Also Read- Regularization Case in Punjab Haryana High Court

Respondent’s Arguments-

The respondents Central Public Works Division, is government body and applicant were employee of the respondents for over a period of more than 30 years, but was suspended for a period of 12 years in between from 1991-2003 as a criminal case was initiated against him. As the employee was acquitted, he was reinstated to his original post of employment and even allowed second MACP but the third MACP of the applicant was due and it was denied to the applicant as he didn’t have the required ACR grading for granting of 3^rd MACP. The applicant filed OA No. 060/00144/2015 w.e.f. 1.9.2008 and thus the gradings in the ACR of the years 1989-90. 1990-91, 2003-04,2005-06 and 2006-07 were taken into consideration and the applicant didn’t fit into the required category of “Very Good” and thus the application was rejected. Another OA No. 835/2016 was filed by the applicant directing the respondents to organize a Screening Committee for the case of applicant w.e.f. 1.4.2014 and if found fit then he will be eligible for 3^rd MACP and all the benefits arising out of the same. But the Screening Committee appointed by the respondents found him unfit for the years 2009-2014 and thus the OA No. 835/2016. Was rejected and the application was dismissed.

Applicant then filed another OA No. 060/00331/2017 to quash the records of Screening Committee dated. 27.04.2016. As the applicant was filing an OA for the third time, Tribunal gave him another chance and directed the Respondent to conduct another meeting of Screening Committee for applicant’s case of 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 1.4.2014, which was held on 16.06.2017 by Director General, CPWD (chairman), Additional Director General (member) and Chief Engineer (member secretary). The Committee gave a detailed order regarding applicant’s case considering him unfit as while taking into record the ACR grading, some of the year’s ACR were unavailable, while some years had two ACRs for a duration of 6 months, which could not be clubbed into place of some other year and therefore as per the Screening Committee he was found unfit for the 3^rd MACP.

Also Read- Removal From Service Challenged in High Court after CAT Tribunal

Order of the Court-

As per the order, the applicant is not entitled to 3^rd MACP as effect to launch of MACP Scheme in 2009 and it has been clearly stated by the Screening Committee that applicant has below benchmark grading of ACRs and thus no further arguments to be extended in the OA and it is dismissed.

The issue was seen on the part of applicant only, as the respondents were clear on their part that applicant was not fit for granting of the 3^rd MACP as his grading was not requisite as per the criteria necessary for granting 3^rd MACP, i.e. 2.5 or “Very Good” APAR/ACR grading. As the applicant had worked as an employee for a period of more than three years, and hence he contended that he was rightly entitled to his 3^rd financial upgradation and hence filed three original application in the CAT, Chandigarh, but his application was rejected by the Screening Committee after taking a look into the ACR Grading of the applicant post his suspension period. Thus, the final order of OA No. 060/00331/2017 quashed the application of applicant after asking the respondents to conduct one last meeting of the Screening Committee and the Tribunal was also satisfied with the detailed assessment of the Committee.
List of Judgements involved-

No Judgments are referred in the present case, depends solely on the decision of Screening Committee and Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh.

Also Read- Service Matter Related MACP Scheme Legal Advice

After listening to the contentions of both the parties, it is clear that in the case of Shri Sarin for granting of 3^rd MACP, he is found unfit as per the latest assessment sheet of Screening Committee. The applicant’s case of grant of MACP is considered with effect from launch of MACP Scheme in 2009, till his year of retirement in 2014 and he has been found below benchmark. The assessment report submitted by the Committee is not questionable and there is no reason to interfere with it and from the above three applications, it is well evident that applicant has been given enough opportunities to make representations against the respondents and the order has attained its finality.
Thus, as per the abovementioned facts and issues of this case, it is clear that a certain grading of ACR is required while claiming for 3^rd MACP, and the case of MACP is considered with effect to launch of MACP Scheme in 2009. The Tribunal was fair enough and gave adequate opportunities and chances to the applicant to present his part of the case, so that no injustice is done to the applicant and he is properly heard also, and the respondents were also co-operative and meetings with respect to the case were diligently conducted by the Screening Committee and detailed assessment was provided with. Although, it was found in all the meetings that applicant was not eligible for 3^rd MACP due to his below benchmark ACR grading irrespective of the years taken into consideration. Thus, the order of Tribunal was fair and justified.

Also Read- MACP CAT Tribunal Bench Case Legal Advice

Another useful post mentioning the 7^th CPC Pay Fixation is here.

For case specific advice, please contact best service matter lawyer of CAT Tribunal Chandigarh Bench or Punjab Haryana High Court handling cases of MACP Scheme.

This post is written by Rhea Banerjee.