Grant of Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme - CAT Bangalore, OA No.248/2024

The CAT Bangalore judgment (OA No. 248/2024, decided on 10 November 2025) concerns a Postal Assistant, Nagendra G., who sought the grant of his 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. The tribunal examined his repeated refusals of promotion, the merger of cadres (PA-SBCO with PA-PO), and departmental rules, ultimately weighing whether he was entitled to MACP benefits despite declining promotions.

Key Case Details

• Applicant: Nagendra G., Postal Assistant (initially PA-SBCO, later PA-PO after cadre merger).
• Respondents: Union of India (Department of Posts), Chief Postmaster General (Karnataka Circle), Postmaster General (SK Region), Superintendent of Post Offices (Udupi Division).
• Tribunal Bench: Justice B.K. Shrivastava (Judicial Member) & Santosh Mehra (Administrative Member).
• Date of Order: 10 November 2025.

Applicant’s Position

First MACP: Granted on 22 June 2009.

Promotion Offers: Declined promotions to Lower Selection Grade (LSG) on three occasions:

• 22 March 2019
• 25 November 2020
• 22 August 2022

Cadre Merger: PA (SBCO) merged with PA (PO) effective 1 January 2023. Applicant switched to PA (PO) cadre in July 2023.

Claim:

• Requested 2nd MACP from either 21 June 2019, 1 January 2023, or 8 August 2023 (one year after last declination).
• Argued that the merger unfairly placed him at the bottom of seniority in PA (PO), denying him promotion opportunities.
• Claimed the merger was an administrative decision, not voluntary, so his career prospects were unjustly affected.

Respondents’ Position

• Rule Cited: DoPT OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt(D) dated 22 October 2019.
• If an employee refuses promotion, financial upgradation under MACP cannot be granted since stagnation is not due to lack of opportunity.
• Subsequent MACP eligibility is deferred by the embargo period (one year per refusal).

Argument:

• Applicant voluntarily declined promotions three times.
• Each refusal imposed a one-year embargo (2019–2020, 2020–2021, 2022–2023).
• Hence, he was not eligible for MACP II during those periods.
• Placement at the bottom of PA (PO) seniority list was per merger rules, not discriminatory.
• Tribunal’s Consideration

Reviewed:

• Applicant’s declinations and their consequences.
• Merger circulars (16 Nov 2022, 2 Dec 2022).
• DoPT guidelines on MACP refusals.
• Observed that declination of promotion is a voluntary act and carries consequences under MACP rules.
• Considered whether merger conditions unfairly impacted applicant’s eligibility.

Core Issue

• Whether Nagendra G. is entitled to 2nd MACP benefits despite refusing promotions, given the cadre merger and subsequent loss of promotional avenues.

Practical Takeaway

• MACP benefits are strictly linked to acceptance of promotions.
• Refusal of promotion delays financial upgradation eligibility.
• Cadre mergers may alter seniority and career prospects, but do not override MACP rules