#MACP

CAT Ernakulam ruled that the Administration's failure to maintain APARs during an employee's study leave cannot justify withholding MACP arrears from 2004. The Tribunal held that FR-24 mandates annual increments as a matter of course unless withheld through due process, and directed the Screening Committee to evaluate the claim on whatever records exist. The decision protects government servants from losing financial upgradation due to administrative lapses.

Patna HC upheld CAT's quashing of ₹4.87 lakh recovery from a railway employee granted premature MACP upgradation due to departmental error. The court ruled excess pay cannot be recovered absent employee misrepresentation, placing the burden of administrative mistakes on the department. This reinforces protection for government servants against financial liability for errors in pay fixation.

CAT Cuttack rules that recovery of excess pay from Group-C employees-even due to departmental error-is impermissible under Jogeswar Sahoo v. Dist. Judge, as it violates principles of natural justice and Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The ruling protects low-ranking employees from arbitrary deductions without prior notice or opportunity to be heard.

CAT Ernakulam rules that denying the 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) upgradation based on Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) grading outside the preceding five-year period is unlawful. The tribunal directed the grant of benefits with arrears, emphasizing procedural fairness in service law.

CAT Ahmedabad holds that promotion via LDCE is direct recruitment, not a promotion for MACP eligibility, entitling employees to financial up-gradations after 30 years of service.