MADHAV BEHARI MATHUR vs Central Excise & Customs on 23 October 2026

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

Two Original Applications No.337/2017 and No.338/2017 had been filed by Applicants who had retired as Deputy Commissioner (D.C.) of Indian Revenue Service (I.R.S.), Customs & Central Excise (C&CE) – against the impugned order dated 28.02.2017, vide which the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation earlier allowed to them vide Order dated 27.05.2013 had been withdrawn ; and further against rejection of their related representations by the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur (Respondent No.3).

2. Since both the Applicants were similarly placed on facts and had agitated the same action by the Respondents in respect of the very same matter on similar grounds, the afore-mentioned O.A.s were taken up together with the consent of the contesting parties – the Applicants and the Respondents ; and are disposed of vide this common order, which though passed in O.A. No.337/2017, would apply ipso facto to O.A. No.338/2017 also.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record in O.A. No.337/2017, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant was initially appointed on 04.10.1978 as Inspector, Central Excise (CE), earlier a Group-C non-gazetted post (later re-classified to be a Group-B non- gazetted post), under the Respondent No.3. He was subsequently promoted as Superintendent (CE), a Group-B gazetted post, under Respondent No.3, w.e.f. 29.07.1991. On completion of 24 years of regular service, the Applicant had been allowed the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme, while he had continued as Superintendent (CE). Later on 08.01.2007, he got the substantive promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (A.C.), NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

I.R.S.(C&CE) into an organized Group-A service – which he joined on 23.01.2007. Eventually on 31.01.2012, he was promoted to the post of D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) in the same organized Group-A service – which he joined on 06.02.2012 ; and had retired as such on superannuation on 31.05.2013.

Meanwhile, the Department of Personnel & Training (D.oP.&T.) of the Government of India had notified the Modified Assured Career Progression (M.A.C.P.) Scheme on 19.05.2009 to be applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2008 – as per which three financial upgradations were to be considered duly at 10,20 and 30 years of continuous regular service respectively. However, vide the said O.M. dated 19.05.2009, financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme was not admissible to members of organized Group-A services. Nonetheless, vide the clarification issued through the O.M. dated 13.06.2012 of the D.oP.&T., it had been decided to allow grant of financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme w.e.f. from the due date to those officers who were inducted to organized Group ‘A’ service when they were nearing retirement, subject to the condition that such an evaluation will be made only at the time of retirement ; and further that in case such officers had already attained three financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme, they shall not be entitled for non-functional upgradation (N.F.U.) to the same grade from a later date. Corresponding directions had been issued to all Cadre Controlling Authorities (C.C.A.s) under the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.), Department of Revenue vide their communication dated 12.10.2012.

4. The Applicant’s case for a 3rd financial upgradation was considered by the Office of the Respondent No.3, purportedly in accordance with D.oP.&T. Memos dated 19.05.2009 and dated 13.06.2012 and the clarification dated 12.10.2012 by the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue ; and the Applicant inter alia NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

had been granted 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 (i.e., upon completion of 30 years of regular continuous service) vide the Order dated 27.05.2013. Subsequently though, the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue had issued the letter dated 07.12.2016 addressed to Respondent No.3 regarding grant of financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme to Group-A officers who had been inducted into I.R.S.(C&CE) at later stage. It was mentioned thereby that upon examining the matter regarding applicability of C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue letter dated 12.10.2012 to the officers who were promoted to the post of D.C., it was observed that those officers had already got three promotions in their service period from the entry grade of Inspector (CE) ; and therefore, the said letter dated 12.10.2012 was not applicable in their case and they were not eligible for the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme.

The Respondent No.3 had also been advised specifically in respect of certain officers, the Applicant inter alia, that they had already got three promotions during the service from the entry grade of Inspector (CE). Hence, the D.oP.&T. O.M. dated 13.06.2012 and the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue letter dated 12.10.2012 were deemed as not applicable in their cases and they were not eligible for any financial benefit under the M.A.C.P. Scheme. It had further been advised to take appropriate action for recovery of wrongful/excess payment made to such officers who had already retired. In pursuance thereof the Respondent No.3 had issued the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 to withdraw the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme granted to the present Applicant inter alia w.e.f. the date of its grant (i.e. 04.10.2008) itself. The Applicant had thereafter submitted representations dated 07.03.2017 and dated 21.03.2017 ; which came to be disposed of vide the impugned NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

communication dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of the Respondent No.3, without being acceded to.

5. Aggrieved of the aforesaid, the Applicant had filed the present O.A. to seek the substantive reliefs, inter alia – that the impugned communication dated 07.12.2016 issued by the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue for denying the benefit of the 3rd financial upgradation to him, the impugned Order dated 28.02.2017 issued by the Respondent No.3 in pursuance thereof and the Letter dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of Respondent No.3 upon his representations, be all quashed and set aside ; and that the Respondents be also directed to allow him the benefit of a 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 as per the earlier Order dated 27.05.2013 and to make payment of arrears accordingly.

6. The Applicant had raised several grounds in support of his case, the substantive grounds in support of their case being inter alia that while the third promotion to DC I.R.S.(C&CE) was allowed to him vide Order dated 31.01.2012 (joined on 06.02.2012), he had already completed 30 years of regular continuous service on 04.10.2008 itself. Hence, the Applicant had contended that since to get the benefit of a 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme, the requirement was that the concerned officer had not been allowed three financial upgradations/promotions on the due date ; and purportedly, as the Applicant had completed 30 years of continuous regular service on 04.10.2008 and till then, admittedly he was allowed only two financial upgradations/promotions – a 3rd financial upgradation became due for him w.e.f. 04.10.2008. Hence, the promotion as D.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE) accorded later than 04.10.20028 w.e.f. 31.01/06.02.2012 ought to be treated as inconsequential insofar as the grant of a 3rd financial upgradation to the Applicant under M.A.C.P. Scheme was concerned ; and the NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

benefit so allowed w.e.f. 04.10.2008 vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of the Respondent No.3 was rightly given to him.

Additionally, the technical grounds raised were that the impugned Order dated 28.02.2017 had adverse civil consequences for him ; hence, before passing the said impugned Order for withdrawing the benefit of a 3rd financial upgradation earlier allowed w.e.f. 04.10.2008, the Respondents were required to give an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant as per principles of natural justice. Further, it was also contended that while he had been allowed the 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 based on the recommendations of a duly constituted screening committee, the withdrawal of the same had been done without convening a review meeting of the said screening committee.

7. Vide their reply, the Respondents had admitted only the matters of fact on record, inter alia – that the Applicant was initially appointed on 04.10.1978 as Inspector (CE) and was later promoted as Superintendent (CE), w.e.f. 29.07.1991 ; that on completion of 24 years of regular service, he had been allowed the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under the A.C.P. Scheme, while he had continued substantively as Superintendent (CE) ; that later on 08.01.2007, he got the substantive promotion to the post of A.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE) into an organized Group-A service, which he joined on 23.01.2007 ; and that eventually on 31.01.2012, he was promoted as D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) in the same organized Group-A service – which he joined on 06.02.2012 ; and had retired as such on superannuation on 31.05.2013.

It had also been admitted inter alia – that as per the M.A.C.P. Scheme notified on 19.05.2009 to be applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2008, three financial upgradations were to be considered duly at 10,20 and 30 years of continuous regular service respectively ; that however, financial upgradation under the said NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

M.A.C.P. Scheme were not admissible to members of organized Group-A services ; that nonetheless, vide the clarification issued through the O.M. dated 13.06.2012 of the D.oP.&T., it had been decided to allow financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme w.e.f. from the due date to those officers who were inducted to organized Group -A service when they were nearing retirement, subject to the condition that such an evaluation will be made only at the time of retirement ; and further that in case such officers had already attained three financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme, they shall not be entitled for non-functional upgradation (N.F.U.) to the same grade from a later date.

It had further been admitted inter alia – that the Applicant’s case for a 3rd financial upgradation was considered by the Office of the Respondent No.3, purportedly in accordance with the communication dated 12.10.2012 by the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue issued in follow-up to the D.oP.&T. Memo dated 13.06.2012 ; that the Applicant inter alia had been granted 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 (i.e. upon completion of 30 years of regular continuous service) vide the Order dated 27.05.2013 ; that subsequently however, vide Letter dated 07.12.2016 of C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue, it was conveyed that the Board’s earlier letter dated 12.10.2012 was not applicable in case of those officers who had already got three promotions in their service period from the entry grade of Inspector (CE) and they were not eligible for the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme ; and that in pursuance thereof, the Respondent No.3 had issued the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 to withdraw the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme granted to the Applicant inter alia w.e.f. the date of grant (i.e. 04.10.2008) itself. His related representations dated 07.03.2017 and 21.03.2017 came NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

to be disposed of vide the impugned Letter dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of Respondent No.3.

8. Per contra, Respondents had contested the other contentions and averments on part of the Applicant vide the present O.A. In particular, it had been contended that the benefit of financial upgradation could only be admissible/granted as per the provisions of the extant A.C.P. or M.A.C.P. Schemes. In particular, in respect of the Applicant’s essential claim to be allowed a 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme since the date of completion of 30 years of overall continuous regular service, the Respondents had contended that the O.M. dated 19.05.2009, for M.A.C.P. Scheme itself had clearly stated at Para- 3 thereof that the said Scheme shall be applicable to all regularly appointed Group-(A/B/C) Central Government civilian employees, except officers of Organised Group-A services. On being promoted and appointed as A.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE), the Applicant became an officer of an organized Group-A service w.e.f. 23.01.2007, thus he was per se not covered for financial upgradation vide the M.A.C.P. Scheme introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2008.

9. Nonetheless, it was further submitted that the D.oP.&T. had issued the O.M. dated 13.06.2012 regarding grant of benefits of M.A.C.P. Scheme to officers who were later inducted into Organized Group-A Services, which upon reference was shown to clarify that –

“ In terms of clarification given on point of doubt no.2 of Annexure of this Department's O.M. dated 09.09.2010, no benefits under the M.A.C.P.S would be applicable to Group A officers of Organised Group A Services, as the officer under organized Group 'A' Services have already been allowed parity of two years on non-functional basis with the officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). In this regard, this Department is in receipt of a number of references from various Departments in respect of officers NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

who are deprived of the benefits of M.A.C.P.S due to their induction into the organised Group A Services at a later stage of their service.

2. The issue has been considered by this Department in consultation with Department of Expenditure. It has been decided to allow grant of financial up-gradations under M.A.C.P.S with effect from the due date to those officers who are inducted to the Organized Group 'A' Services when they are nearing retirement subject to the condition that only at the time of retirement an evaluation of up-gradations/promotions earned by the officer would be made. In case such officers have already attained three financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme, they shall not be entitled for N.F.U. to the same grade from a later date.” The Respondents had averred that at first in pursuance of the said O.M. dated 13.06.2012 of D.oP.&T. and the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue Letter dated 12.10.2012 issued in follow-up, the Office of Respondent No.3 had convened a Screening Committee meeting on 21.05.2013, which had considered the cases of Group-A officers who had not earned three financial upgradations/promotions till completion of 30 years of continuous regular service. As per its recommendations, such officers including the Applicant also, were allowed 3rd financial upgradation vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of Respondent No.3.

However, since the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue had received references from its different Commissionerates seeking clarification regarding applicability of its Letter dated 12.10.2012 in respect of officers who were already promoted as D.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE) prior to their retirement on superannuation – it had consulted the D.oP.&T. as the O.M. dated 19.05.2009 for M.A.C.P. Scheme had provided inter alia that any interpretation or clarification of doubt as to the scope and meaning of the provisions of the M.A.C.P. Scheme shall be given by the D.oP.&T.(Estt.-D). After such due consultation with D.oP.&T., it had been clarified by C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue that since those officers who were working as D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) had already got three promotions in their service period from entry NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

grade of Inspector, therefore the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue Letter dated 12.10.2012 was not applicable in their cases and they were not eligible for any benefit under M.A.C.P. Scheme. It had also been advised thereby to take appropriate corrective action, including that for recovery of wrongful/excess payment made to such officers who had already retired. Accordingly in rectification, the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme, as earlier allowed wrongly to such officers (including the present Applicant) was rightly withdrawn vide Order dated 28.02.2017 of Respondent No.3.

10. The Respondents had also sought to rely upon the authority of the Judgments/Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to support the correctness of the actions taken, inter alia – that as per the Judgment/Order dated 19.11.1997 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A No.5336 of 1995 [1998 SCC (L&S) 1191] in the case of Kishorilal Charmakar & Anr. Vs. District Education Officer & Anr., it had been held that an employee on whom an undeserved benefit has been conferred on account of mistake on the part of the Government is not entitled to retain it ; also that as per the Judgment/Order dated 20.02.1997 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the C.A. No.27 of 1985 [1997 SCC (L&S) 801] in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, it had been held that a wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity and equality, as two wrongs can never make a right ; further that as per the Judgment/Order dated 01.04.2008 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.2338 of 2008 [2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 1047 ] in the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Kar & Ors., it had been held that bonafide mistake committed in payment does not confer any right on any party and it can be corrected ; further also that as per the Judgment/Order dated 19.12.2002 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos.4679-80 and NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

10983 of 1996 [2003 SCC (L&S) 191] in the case of P.U. Joshi & Ors. Vs. Accountant-General, Ahmedabad & Ors., it had been held that questions relating to constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creations/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertain to the field of policy is within exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State and it is not for the Tribunals to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment, etc., by substituting its views for that of the State ; and moreover that as per the Judgment/Order dated 28.04.2004 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.2785 of 2004 [2005 SCC (L&S) 785] in the case of Vice- Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, it had been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket and should not be stretched too far.

In the light of the same, it had been mentioned pertinently inter alia – that the Applicant and other similarly situated D.C.s were erroneously granted the 3rd financial upgradation under the M.A.C.P. Scheme to the grade pay of Rs.6600 in PB-3 w.e.f. 04.10.2008 ; that the said mistake was rectified by the Department vide impugned

Order

dated 28.02.2017 of Respondent No.3 ; and that the follow-up Orders in compliance thereof had also been issued by Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur on 21.04.2017 for revision of pension of the Applicant. It was also submitted that similar orders had also been issued for revision of pension for other similarly situated D.C.s.

11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties on record, inter alia the M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines, the O.M.s dated 13.05.2009 and 13.06.2012 of the D.oP.&T., the relevant Letters issued by the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue as well as the authority of Judgments/Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited. NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

The arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties were also heard.

12. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the settled position in law – that statutory rules should prevail and must be strictly adhered to and the principles of estoppel and acquiescence cannot apply over and above the eligibility condition having statutory force laid down by statutory rules ; that there can be no estoppel against law and if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person.

It was also noted that the framing of the guidelines for the grant of benefit of financial upgradation would be in the domain of the concerned competent administrative authorities – and accordingly the same had been framed and issued vide the D.oP.&T. O.M. dated 19.05.2009 to be effective from 01.09.2008. The said policy guidelines would be binding upon all Central Government Departments ; and M.A.C.P. Scheme benefits must be granted strictly in accordance with those and not otherwise.

It is deemed apposite to fortify the aforesaid by an apposite reference to the recent Judgment/Order dated 23.07.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Harbans Lal Verma [2026 INSC 739], whereby it had been clarified inter alia that –

“48. … … The principles governing the effect of executive interpretations of government service schemes are well established. A government service scheme, such as the MACPS, is an executive instrument. Its interpretation by the administering authority particularly where that interpretation follows consultation with the nodal department (DoPT in NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

case of the MACPS) is entitled to due consideration. This Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), in Paragraph 30, held in explicit terms that “Departmental clarifications issued by DoPT are integral to the Scheme and binding on all authorities.” This is not a statement of mere administrative courtesy. It reflects the well-established principle that an executive scheme created by the Government for its own employees is to be administered as the Government intends, and that executive interpretations of such schemes, when issued by the competent authority in consultation with the nodal department, are binding on service tribunals, subordinate courts, and all administrative authorities.” … … The ratio of the conclusions recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court thereby was inter alia that DoPT-consulted binding executive clarifications of MACS are in conformity with, and not in derogation of, the parent Scheme ; and must be given full effect.

13. Thus, the substantive issue presently before us was whether the Applicant was eligible for a 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 upon completion of 30 years of continuous regular service, despite being promoted as A.C. in Group-A of I.R.S.(C&CE) on 08.01.2007 (joined on 23.01.2007) as well as being promoted as D.C. also in Group-A of I.R.S.(C&CE) on 31.01.2012 (joined on 06.02.2012). Further, the same had to be determined in the light of the relevant facts in the case and the extant rules/guidelines for grant of benefits of financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme. It had clearly emerged thereby that the Applicant was appointed in the Group-A post of A.C. in I.R.S.(C&CE) w.e.f. 08/23.01.2007, which was in an organized Group-A service of the Central Government. Hence, as per the extant M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines issued on 19.05.2009 by the D.oP.&T., he was per se not covered for financial upgradations under the M.A.C.P. Scheme after 23.01.2007. Accordingly, he would also not be eligible per se for a 3rd financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of continuous regular service on 04.10.2008.

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

14. Nonetheless, since vide the O.M. dated 19.05.2009 for M.A.C.P. Scheme itself, D.oP.&T. was authorized for any interpretation/clarification of doubt as to the scope and meaning of the provisions of the M.A.C.P. Scheme – it had issued the clarificatory O.M. dated 13.06.2012 in the context of references received from various Departments regarding officers who were deprived of the benefits of M.A.C.P. Scheme due to their induction into an organised Group-A Services at a late stage of their service. After considering the issue in consultation with Department of Expenditure, the D.oP.&T had thereby clarified that although no benefits under the M.A.C.P. Scheme were applicable to Group-A officers of Organised Group-A Services, yet it had been decided to allow grant of financial up-gradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme with effect from the due date to those officers who were inducted to the Organized Group 'A' Services when they were nearing retirement, subject to the condition that an evaluation of up-gradations/promotions earned by the officer would be made only at the time of retirement. In case such officers had already attained three financial upgradations under M.A.C.P. Scheme, they shall not be entitled for Non-Functional Upgradation (N.F.U.) to the same grade from a later date. Those binding guidelines/clarifications thereto had been accepted as valid by the Applicant, as well as purportedly complied with as interpreted/understood at first vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of the Respondent No.3 – by allowing the 3rd financial upgradation to the Applicant w.e.f. 04.10.2008, i.e. from the date of completion of 30 years of regular service by him.

15. However, after the Applicant having been allowed a 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008 vide the Order dated 27.05.2013, the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue had received references for clarification in respect of admissibility of financial upgradation in respect of officers – who had been appointed on NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

promotion from Superintendent (CE) as A.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) in a Group-A organized Service, but had further been also promoted/upgraded as D.C. in the I.R.S.(C&CE) before their retirement on superannuation. Upon due consultation with the D.oP.&T., it had been clarified vide the Letter dated 07.12.2016 of the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue that since the officers who were working as D.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) had already got three promotions in their service period from entry grade of Inspector (CE), they were not eligible for any further financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme. Accordingly, Respondents had proceeded vide Order dated 27.02.2017 to withdraw the 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme granted to the Applicant previously vide Order dated 27.05.2013 of Respondent No.3.

16. It would emerge that while the aforesaid latter clarification issued in consultation with D.oP.&T. had been complied with vide Order dated 27.02.2017 of the Respondent No.3, the Applicant had not accepted the same as valid and had impugned the same vide the present O.A. Such pick-and-choose inherent in such selective acceptance of binding clarifications by the D.oP.&T. of the M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines was untenable. The extant D.oP.&T. M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines/clarifications had to prevail ; and the said action of the Respondents for inadmissibility of a 3rd financial upgradation for the Applicant – who had been appointed on promotion from Superintendent (CE) as A.C., I.R.S.(C&CE) in a Group-A organized Service ; and had further been also promoted/upgraded as D.C. in the I.R.S.(C&CE) on 08/23.01.2012 before retirement on superannuation on 31.05.2013 – was shown to be in accordance with the extant guidelines and binding clarifications related thereto. Such action of the Respondents was found to be legally correct as such ; and the same action cannot be deemed as illegal.

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

17. Regarding the technical ground that the previous grant of 3rd financial upgradation had been made upon the recommendations of the Screening Committee at its meeting dated 21.05.2013, the role of the Screening Committee was to recommend the cases for M.A.C.P. Scheme benefits to the Appointing Authority ; however, the Appointing Authority was competent/empowered to accept or reject such recommendations. Moreover, the recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 21.05.2013, as well as the Order dated 27.05.2013 of Respondent No.3, had to be strictly in accordance with the extant guidelines related to M.A.C.P. Scheme and not otherwise, for those to be valid. Since the aforesaid proceedings of the Screening Committee dated 21.05.2013 and the consequent Order dated 27.05.2013 had been found to be de hors the eligibility condition laid down by extant M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines/clarifications thereto of D.oP.&T. – those cannot be held to be valid or to be in force till reconsideration by a review meeting of the Screening Committee. Mere issuance of such recommendations by Screening Committee or any Orders in pursuance thereof cannot convert the grant of 3rd financial upgradation under M.A.C.P. Scheme to the Applicant to be legal ; and that would not create any vested right for the Applicant per se. It was open for the Respondents to correct the mistake in accordance with the entitlement of the Applicant as per extant M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines and clarifications thereto.

18. Regarding the objection that the Applicant had not been allowed the opportunity of hearing prior to issue of the impugned Order dated 28.02.2017 by Respondent No.3 for withdrawing the grant of 3rd financial upgradation as per principles of natural justice – it is noted that the Applicant had later made the representations dated 07.03.2017 and 21.03.2017 to the Respondent authorities, which had been considered and disposed of with the approval of the competent authority vide the NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

impugned Letter dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of the Respondent No.3. Relevantly in the present case, the Applicant had not in any way shown that the non-observance of principles of natural justice, as claimed by him, had prejudiced his case – as was required to be shown as per the settled position in law. Per contra, the extant M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines and clarifications thereto, directly relevant to the case of the Applicant were for inadmissibility of a 3rd financial upgradation for the Applicant. Hence, in the present case, we found that the Applicant had sought to rely only on principles of natural justice – without showing how his case had been prejudiced thereby ; even when the extant guidelines and clarifications thereto were followed by the Respondents. We advert to the authority of the Judgment/Order dated 28.04.2004 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.2785 of 2004 [2005 SCC (L&S) 785] in the case of Vice- Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, presented by the Respondents – whereby it had been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket and should not be stretched too far – we hold that the objection vide the present O.A. related to principles of natural justice not being followed by the Respondents, without showing how his case had been prejudiced thereby even when the extant guidelines and clarifications thereto were followed by the Respondents, tantamounted to stretching those principles too far. It was thus untenable and would not help the present Applicant.

19. In the conspectus of all of the above, it was found that the withdrawal of the 3rd financial upgradation – earlier allowed w.e.f. 04.10.2008 vide

Order

dated 27.05.2013 of the Respondent No.3, which itself was purportedly based upon the recommendations of the D.P.C. dated 21.05.2013 – was not required to be interfered with. The claim of the Applicant for quashing and setting aside – of the impugned Letter dated NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

07.12.2016 of the C.B.E.C., Department of Revenue ; and of the impugned Order dated 28.02.2017 of the Respondent No.3 and of the impugned Letter dated 09.05.2017 of the Office of the Respondent No.3 – was not found tenable on merits and therefore the same was liable to be rejected. It is rejected hereby.

The other relief as prayed for by the Applicant – to be allowed the benefit of the earlier Order dated 27.05.2013 for a 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.10.2008, as well as to make payment of arrears accordingly – would also thus be inadmissible.

20. Therefore, the present O.A. is dismissed on merit. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also be disposed of in accordance.

21. The O.A. No.338/2017 shall also stand disposed of ipso facto in terms of the Order/directions herein above.

(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

kumawat

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT