K.J. MERCYAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's claim for Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme [for brevity, 'the MACP Scheme'], on its introduction w.e.f. 01.09.2008, was declined by the Tribunal. The petitioner joined as a Postal Assistant on 01.07.1975. Prior to MACP, in the Postal Department, what was applicable was Time Bound Grade Promotion introduced w.e.f. 30.11.1983 and Biennial Cadre Review w.e.f. 01.10.1991. Admittedly the petitioner, who was a Postal Assistant, received her first financial upgradation on completion of 16 years, on 01.07.1991. She also got her second financial upgradation on completion of 26 years from the date of entry, ie. 01.07.2001. She was hence in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. On 11.10.2007, she was granted promotion as Postal Assistant [Lower Selection Grade].

(2.) On 01.01.2006, the 6th Pay Commission Recommendations came into effect. The petitioner being in the scale of 5000-8000 was put in the Pay Band of 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4,200/-. If she had accepted the promotion, she would only have been placed in the Pay Band of 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2,800/-. Essentially, she benefited by the option exercised of denial of promotion. The problem arose when the MACP was introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2008.

(3.) MACP was introduced granting financial up- gradation on continuing in the same grade pay for 10, 20 and 30 years. The petitioner claimed MACP benefits on completion of 30 years. However, the Department rejected the same for reason of a promotion having been granted and declined. True, the petitioner, though would have had the benefit of pay protection, if the promotion had been accepted, when the 6 th Pay Commission Recommendations were implemented, she would have lost out. However, the MACP Scheme has to be interpreted on the terms on which it is introduced.