LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

From what point are the three financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme counted?

The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai
2026:MHC:3177 · WP NOS.33823, 27433 & 30026 OF 2023
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar · Justice N. Senthilkumar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Clause (1) Modified Assured Care…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

From the direct entry grade. Clause (1) provides three financial upgradations under the Scheme, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively, and a financial upgradation is admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay. The period of service is therefore reckoned from the employee's entry grade.

Headnote

Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Clause (1) — Clause (5) — Financial upgradation — Pay anomalies — Prospective operation — Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Clause (1) — Upgradation on 10, 20 and 30 years from the entry grade — Held: The Scheme provides three financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years, and an upgradation is admissible whenever an employee has spent ten years continuously in the same grade pay. (¶11, ¶13) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Clause (5) — Confined to pay anomalies — Held further: Clause (5), which ignores earlier promotions to grades now carrying the same grade pay, addresses anomalies arising from merger of scales or upgradation of posts; it does not apply where upgradations fall due under Clause (1). (¶15, ¶16, ¶17) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Prospective operation — No benefit before the Scheme existed — Held further: A scheme operates prospectively from the date it came into force, and no benefit can be claimed for years in which it did not exist; the third upgradation runs ten years from the accepted date of the second. Petitions allowed. (¶24, ¶26, ¶27)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 11Clause (1) of MACP Scheme stipulates “There shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counter from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. Finance upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same Grade Pay”.
Paragraph 13Holistic reading of above Clauses (1) and (5) reveals that the scheme provides for three financial upgradations. These upgradations are granted from direct entry grade upon completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of services, respectively. Consequently, the period of service is reckoned from the entry grade of the employees.
Paragraph 14The Scheme further states that financial upgradation will be admissible, whenever an individual has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade. Therefore, an employee, who remains in the same grade pay for 10 years becomes eligible for financial upgradations under MACP Scheme.
Acts & Sections
Clause (1) Modified Assured Career Progression SchemeClause (5) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
When does the clause ignoring earlier promotions to grades that now carry the same grade pay apply?Can an employee claim the benefit of a career-progression scheme for a period before the scheme came into force?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections