Ex SubClk Dharamvir (Army) vs UOI & Others on 4 August 2026

O R D E R

04.08.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant the benefits to MACP III to the applicant and arrears on such grant may be paid alongwith interest @12% per annum. He has also prayed for directing the Respondents to place on record SRO Part II Order NoI/0625/2012 dated 01/5/2001 and the same be quashed and set aside.

2. In response to the Legal Notice served upon the Respondents by the counsel for the applicant for the relief sought, the Record Office vide their letter dated 22/7/2014, stated that as per Army HQ letter dated 13/6/2011, there shall be three financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, counted from the direct

entry grade on completion of 8, 16 and 24 years of service respectively. Financial upgradation under the above scheme will also be admissible whenever a person has spent eight years continuously in the same grade pay but no more than three financial upgradations. Further, the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 22/6/1984 and promoted to the rank of Havwef25/6/1987, Nb Sub wef 24/6/1999 and Sub wef 01/1/2006. Therefore, the applicant is not eligible for grant of benefits under MACP Scheme.

3. Contrary to the statement of the Respondents, counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing, submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Corps of Signals as a Clerk GD on 22/6/1984 and became a Havildar Clerk on 22/4/1987 with the direct entry graduate Havildar Clerk under the Scheme introduced in the year 1987 after undergoing due process. He was discharged from service on completion of his terms of engagement on 31/5/2012 and the applicant got two promotions, ie, Nb Sub wef 01/2/1999 and Sub wef 01/1/2006 during his service span of 28 years, since the rank of Havildar was not a promotion post for the applicant, as it was a direct entry one.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. After considering all aspects of the case and contention of the applicant herein, we deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the Respondents to re- examine the case of the applicant in the light of the fact that the applicant was not promoted to the rank of Havildar, but was a direct entry Havildar Clerk wef22/4/1987 (25/6/1987 as per statement of Respondents) with the Graduate direct entry Hav Clerk Scheme after having undergone due process of selection. Thereafter, he got only two promotions of Nb Sub and Sub in his entire career

span. In fact, the applicant was promoted to the rank of Nb Sub after completion of 12 years in the rank of Havildar. We expect the Respondents to take a decision taking into consideration the entire gamut of issue involved within a period ofsix months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the outcome thereof shall be intimated to the applicant.

6. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-