Articles you may Like
This is a classic example of how a clarification order could misinterpret the original order. As you all know, the office memorandum for implementation of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for central government employees was issued on 19.5.2009 by DOPT with effect from 1.9.2008.
In fact the said order is self contained one and there is very little scope for any confusion. However, while implementing the same administrative authorities attached to Customs and Central excise department had certain doubts, for which Ministry of Finance has issued a clarification order on 2.2.2010. The said clarification order dated 2.2.2010, attempts to clarify seven types of doubts raised. We provide here the issue involved relating to Point No: 3 of Clarification order dated 2.2.2010. While a clarification order ought to have been issued for correctly interpreting the original order, the clarification dated 2.2.2010, complicates the MACPS and in fact denies the very benefit provided under MACPS.
What clarification Order dated 2.2.2010 issued by MOF says:
It was sought to be clarified with MOF that whether a UDC who got earlier two promotions (to the grade of tax assistant & Inspector) after completion of 5 years of service is eligible for 3rd MACP (financial upgradation) after he completes 10 years of service in the grade of Inspector.
In respect of this question the MOF has clarified that in such circumstances 3rd MACP would be granted after completion of 30 years or whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay whichever is later. Obviously, in this case the completion of 30 years would fall later when compared to completion of 10 years of service in the same grade/grade pay
What the Original OM dated 19.5.2009 for MACPS says:
The Original OM dated 19.5.2009, provides for three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service respectively. In addition, financial Upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade-pay. It is apparent that there is no provision in the OM dated 19.5.2009, to the extent that one of the two conditions viz., 1. completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service and 2. completion of 10 years continuously in the same grade-pay, whichever falls later has to be applied whenever an employee crosses the milestone of 10, 20, or 30 years of service.
New condition not provided in Original Order introduced:
However, the clarification order dated 2.2.2010 brings this new term “whichever is later” for the first time into the picture, while there is no advocation for such a kind of procedure in the original MACPS order. This misinterpretation is proved to be very costly as per the clarification dated 2.2.2010, as whenever an employee is promoted to the next cadre within the period of 10 years service, say 5 years, he has to wait for his 2nd MACP till the completion of 20 years of service.
Why it’s proved to be costly for employees:
Take the case of another employee who gets his first promotion after completion of 18 years in same grade will be eligible for 2nd MACP only after completion of 10 years of service in the promoted grade/grade pay. So, he will be eligible for 2nd MACP only after completion of 28 years of Government service, since completion of 10 years of service in the same grade pay will only fall later than the completion of 20 years of service for getting 2nd MACP in his case. On the contrary, as per the original order dated 19.5.2009 for MACPS issued by DOPT he will be getting his 2nd MACP after completion of 20 years of govt service.
What does the Para 28 (i) of MACPS say:
The original MACP order very clearly advocates that if the first promotion is given say after completion of 8 years, 2nd MACP has to be granted after completion of 18 years not withstanding the fact that the regular service criteria for getting 2nd MACP is 20 years, since the said employee has completed 10 years of service in the same grade/grade pay. (please see the illustration given in Para 28 (i)).
We can say Ministry of Finance has got its wires crossed in this issue by mistaking the two types of conditions envisaged in the original MACPS issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOPT). In fact, the original MACPS order simplifies many issues by providing suitable flow diagrams. For instance, the illustration that we discussed in the previous para was well explained through the flow diagram (Please see Page No: 10 of annexure-1 to the Original MACPS order dated 19.5.2009 – Diagram under the heading Para 28 (i) & (ii). It could be seen that the clarification given under point no: 3 of the clarification order dated 2.2.2010, totally contradicts the Para 28 (i) of the original MACP order dated 19.5.2009 and the illustrative flow diagram given under Para 28 (i) and (ii).
We hope MOF should look into this aspect immediately as it’s very easier to sort out these sort of misinterpretations at an early stage.