New Updated Salary Calculator with 31% DAJudgement on MACP – Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai
VERY IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT FROM HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
IMPLEMENTATION OF MACP RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 01-09-2008 AND DENYING PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY UNDER ACP FOR THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED REQUIRED SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN 01-09-2008 TO 19-05-2009 HELD NOT LEGAL
Highlights of the Judgement
“The applicants having completed 24 years of service, between January and April 2009, they were hoping to be bestowed with the benefit of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, which was more advantageous to them, since the fixation is done in the next hierarchy of promotion and not in the next higher Grade Pay, as contemplated under the MACP scheme.”
“According to the applicants, on the day when they completed 24 years of service, MACP scheme was not introduced, and as the same was introduced only by Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, their claim would fall within the four corners of the benefits available under the erstwhile ACP scheme, and an accrued right which was otherwise available to the applicants under the erstwhile ACP scheme cannot be curtailed or altered or taken away by retrospective implementation of the MACP scheme, with effect from 01.09.2008.”
“it is ordered to grant the above benefits, the benefits of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, if extended would have to be withdrawn.”
I worked on ad-hoc from 9.5.84 to 19.12.88 but my ad-hoc services not counted for the purpose of MACP Whereas in similar case CAT ordered for counting ad-hoc services & my deptt. gives benefits after counting of ad-hoc services to my counter part. But not given to me.
Is it not violation of principal of equality. In the same deptt, the same authority has given benefit to one person but refused to me, though it was same & similar case