Ex Sep Deepak Kumar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 27 October 2025

O R D E R

27.10.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Non Applicants to grant MACP II to the Applicant wef 22/9/2020 and pension and pensionary benefits of the applicant be fixed and released accordingly.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 22/9/2004 and was discharged from service on 30/9/2021 after serving for 17 years and nine days of service under Rule 13 (3) item (i) and the character of the applicant was assessed Exemplary at the time of his retirement. As per the policy on the subject, the applicant is entitled for grant of MACP II on completion of 16 years of service in the grade pay of Rs 2800/- for the rank of Havildar wef 22/9/2020 in terms of Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Balbir Singh Turn, Civil Appeal No 3744 of 2016, decided on 08/12/2017. However, the same was not extended to the applicant despite numerous representations to the Respondents. Having been aggrieved by the non action of the Respondents, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, they have submitted that the applicant was granted First Financial Upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme to the rank of Naik wef 22/9/2012. He was due for second upgradation to the rank of Havildar on 22/9/2020 in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 30/5/2011, Annexure R/2. Respondents further submit that the applicant was granted merely benefits of rank of Naik under the MACP scheme, but on ground he was a Sepoy as he did not earn any promotion. In accordance with Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated m03/9/1998, he had completed his terms of engagement of service in the rank of Sepoy on 30/9/2021 and accordingly, he was discharged from service under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules 1954 and was granted service pension for the qualifying service wef 01/10/2021. The applicant was due for grant of financial upgradation to the rank of Havildar under the MACP Scheme on 22/9/2020, however, factual inputs for non grant of the same pertains to the Unit of the applicant as the Part II Order for grant of MACP for pay of Havildar was to be published by the Unit only. However, it is presumed that the applicant must have come up in the seniority to attend promotion cadre and he must have rendered his unwillingness to undergo the promotion cadre and, hence, in terms of Army HQ letter dated 13/6/2011, he must have been debarred from the benefits of financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. The factual position of the case can be intimated by the Unit only where the

Applicant was serving on the due date of MACP benefits for the pay of the rank of Havildar wef 22/9/2020. Therefore, this office is not in position to comment upon. Respondents have also stated that additional comments in this case may be asked from 20 JAT as the individual was in service at that time.

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

5. It is evident from the material placed on record that the applicant was enrolled in the Army (JAT Regiment) on 22/9/2004 and was discharged from service on 30/9/2021 on fulfilling the conditions of enrolment or service or on reaching age limit under Rule 13 (3) item III (i) of Army Rules. He had rendered 17 years and nine days of service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The applicant was granted the benefits of First financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme to the rank of Naik wef 22/9/2012. As per the reply statement of the Respondents, the applicant was due for grant of MACP II for the rank of Havildar wef 22/9/2020 in terms of extant policy, but the issue has not been dealt with by the Respondents and they have merely stated that the factual position can only be cleared by the Unit of the applicant, ie, 20 JAT, where the applicant was serving and that the applicant must have rendered his unwillingness to undergo promotion cadre. Be that it may, had it been so the Unit concerned would have got the Unwillingness certificate signed by the Applicant and forwarded the same to the Record Office, who is the custodian of the entire record of serving soldiers of the Army. However, other than stating that the factual position can only be elaborated by the Unit concerned, no cogent documentary evidence has been placed on record by the Respondents to the effect that the applicant had indeed rendered his unwillingness to undergo promotion cadre when his turn time came up for grant of II MACP, which cannot be countenanced. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Record Office cannot absolve themselves from this faux pas, particularly when it comes to the due entitlements of a soldier.

6. In view of the foregoing and since the applicant was due for grant of Second MACP for the rank of Havildar on 22/9/2020, we deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the Respondents to reconsider the issue in a holistic manner and take a fair decision in accordance with extant policies within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant herein.

7. With the above directions, the OA is disposed off.

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

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-