Employees' body seeks uniform MACP benefits for staff who refused promotion

The Government Employees National Confederation (GENC) has urged the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to issue a clarification that employees who have refused or foregone regular promotion should not be denied financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme indefinitely.

In a letter to the DoPT Secretary dated November 5, GENC Secretary General Mukesh Singh, whose organisation is affiliated to the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), said refusal or foregoing of regular promotion should not result in permanent or indefinite denial of the subsequent financial upgradation under MACP.

The confederation said various ministries and departments, particularly the Department of Posts, were interpreting Para 24 of the MACP Scheme to mean that an employee who has refused or foregone regular promotion cannot be granted the next financial upgradation until he or she actually accepts and joins a subsequent promotional post.


"Such an interpretation results in indefinite withholding of financial upgradation, even after expiry of the prescribed period of debarment," Singh said in the letter.

Citing three judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in cases involving Nagendra G, Bhaktimayee Tripathy and C S Jagadeesha, Singh said the next financial upgradation under MACP could be deferred only for the prescribed period of debarment arising from refusal of promotion and should not be withheld indefinitely.

He urged the DoPT, the nodal department, to issue a comprehensive clarification or advisory to all central government ministries and departments, particularly the Department of Posts, to ensure uniform implementation of the MACP Scheme.

Singh said deferment of the next financial upgradation should be restricted to the prescribed period of debarment arising from refusal of promotion, ordinarily one year, or such other period as may be applicable under the relevant instructions.

Upon expiry of the prescribed debarment period, employees should be considered for the next financial upgradation from the admissible date, subject to fulfilment of other prescribed eligibility conditions, including APAR benchmarks and vigilance clearance, he said.

He also sought extension of the clarification to all similarly placed employees, including non-petitioners, irrespective of whether they had approached any judicial forum.

Singh further requested that all pending and previously rejected cases involving similar circumstances be reviewed and eligible employees granted admissible financial benefits with consequential arrears in accordance with applicable rules.

"The benefit of a correct interpretation of a common service provision should not remain confined only to those employees who have approached the Tribunal. Similarly placed non-petitioner employees should also receive equal and fair treatment without being compelled to initiate individual litigation for the same relief," he said.