Ex Hav Karni Ram (Army) vs UOI & Others on 26 May 2026

**O R D E R**

**26.05.2026**

**MA No 360/2020**

1. 1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of two years and six months involved in filing the OA. Delay is condoned.

**OA No 383/2020**

1. 2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant MACP to the applicant wef 01/1/2006. He has further prayed for directing the Respondents to fix his pension wef 01/1/2006 after grant of MACP wef 01/1/2006 alongwith interest @12% per annum on the revised pension.


3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 11/1/1979 and after completion of his successful basic military training, the applicant was posted at various Sectors and operational arrears and had also participated in Kargil War. He retired from service on 30/4/2003 after an exemplary service of 24 years and one day. He was qualified for promotion to the rank of Nb Sub but for want of vacancy as well as being in low medical category due to the disability, "Retinal Vasculities (Rt) Eye", he could not be promoted. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar in the year 1991 and thus had served in the same rank for more than ten years. Upon his discharge from service, he was granted service pension for life for the qualifying service of 24 years and one day. He was also granted disability element of disability pension for life. He further submits that the applicant is entitled to grant of MACP on his having completed 24 years wef 01/1/2006 since the new benefit announced shall also be applicable to similarly situated employees but from the date of applicability of said benefit and similarly situated individuals cannot be denied the benefit based on constitutional judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DS Nakara Vs UOI, (Air 1983 SC 13) as the past and present retirees cannot be discriminated against which would amount to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs SPS Vains & Ors, 2008 (9) SCC 12, there cannot be a class within class. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

4. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 30/4/1979. After more than 13 years of service, the applicant was promoted to the rank of Naik on 08/3/1992 and was granted promotion to the rank of Havildar on 05/6/1996, ie, after four years from the date of promotion to the rank of Naik. On completion of his terms of engagement, as per his rank of Havildar, the Applicant was discharged from service on 30/4/2003 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954 and was granted service pension for life. Respondents have further submitted that the MACP scheme now stands admissible wef 01/1/2006 in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 30/5/2011 and letter dated 25/7/2018 and since the applicant was discharged from service wef 30/4/2003, the applicant is not eligible for grant of relief as prayed in the OA. Moreover, the OA has been filed after a delay of more than 30 months, the OA deserves to be dismissed in terms of Para 22 of the AFT Act, 2007.

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

6. It is apparent from the material on record that the applicant was discharged from service on 30/4/2003 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954 on completion of 24 years of service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. Further, the applicant has misrepresented that he was promoted to the rank of Havildar in the year 1991 and had served for more than ten years in the same rank before being discharged. As stated by the Respondents, he was promoted as Havildar wef 05/6/1996.

7. With regard to grant of MACP Scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 22/8/2022 in the case of Ex HC/GD Virender Singh, in Civil Appeal of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition No 16442 of 2021), alongwith other Civil Appeals, the relevant extract of which reads, as follows :- *"12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Union of India are partly allowed and impugned judgments, to the extent they hold that the MACP Scheme applies with effect from 1.1.2006 and that under the MACP Scheme the employees are entitled to financial upgradation equivalent to the next promotional post, are set aside. MACP Scheme is applicable with effect from 1.9.2008 and as per the MACP Scheme, the entitlement is to financial upgradation equivalent to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands as stated in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008'.*

1. 8. In view of the foregoing and since the applicant was discharged from Army service on 30/4/2003 well before the implementation of MACP Scheme wef 01/9/2008 as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prayer of the applicant has no merit and is rejected.

2. 9. The OA is dismissed accordingly. No order on costs.

3. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

Sd/- XXX

**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

Sd/- XXX

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**

cda/-