Modified Assured Career Progression

The Modified Assured Career Progression scheme, known as MACP, grants a central government employee three financial upgradations to the immediate next higher level of the pay matrix, on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service or 10 years of continuous service in the same level, whichever is earlier. It is governed by the consolidated guidelines in Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 22 October 2019, which supersede and restate the founding scheme of Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19 May 2009, and it has been effective from 1 September 2008. The upgradation is pay and nothing else. Paragraph 19 of Annexure-I to the 2019 guidelines states that the scheme contemplates merely placement on a personal basis in the immediate higher pay level, and does not amount to actual or functional promotion.

MACP exists because promotion in government is uneven. An employee in a cadre with few higher posts can serve for three decades without one, while a colleague of the same seniority in a better-structured cadre rises three times. The scheme puts a floor under the first employee by guaranteeing three pay upgradations regardless of what the cadre offers, and paragraph 8 of Annexure-I counts regular promotions towards that total of three, so an employee who has been promoted the expected number of times draws nothing extra. It is administered by the Department of Personnel and Training, which owns career-progression and service-condition policy, and not by the Department of Expenditure.

The scheme is capped in two directions. Paragraph 3 of Annexure-I limits financial upgradation to Level 15 of the pay matrix, corresponding to the Higher Administrative Grade, and paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum itself excludes officers of the Organised Group A Services, who draw non-functional upgradation instead. Casual employees, employees granted temporary status, and employees appointed on an ad hoc or contract basis do not qualify at all.

This article sets out what the upgradation grants, the two triggers and the scheme’s own worked illustrations, the level reached and the money involved, pay fixation under Rule 13, the Very Good benchmark and the appraisal years it applies to, the screening committee and its twice-yearly calendar, what counts as regular service, the coverage rules and the exclusions, the consequences of refusing a promotion, the stepping-up bar and its single exception, the effect on pension, the Supreme Court judgment that settled the hierarchy question in 2020, the predecessor scheme of 1999, and the demands pending before the 8th Central Pay Commission. Every load-bearing figure is cited to the governing Office Memorandum, the pay commission report, or the judgment.

What the upgradation grants

An MACP upgradation grants a higher pay level and confers nothing else. Paragraph 16 of Annexure-I to the Office Memorandum of 22 October 2019 is explicit that on grant of a financial upgradation there is no change in designation, classification or higher status. The employee continues in the same post, does the same work, and keeps the same place in the seniority list.

Two things do follow the higher pay. Paragraph 16 permits the financial and other benefits that are linked to the pay an employee draws, naming the house building advance and the allotment of government accommodation. Paragraph 21 makes the pay drawn in the higher level the basis for terminal benefits. So the upgradation reaches further than the monthly salary slip, into entitlements keyed to basic pay and into the pension calculation, while leaving the post untouched.

The limit is stated in paragraph 19: the scheme is placement on a personal basis, not an actual or functional promotion. An employee upgraded to Level 7 under MACP is not a Level 7 officer for any purpose other than pay. No vacancy is filled, no post is created, and no departmental promotion committee is involved.

The two triggers for an upgradation

Paragraph 1 of Annexure-I sets two triggers and applies whichever is earlier: three financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively, or 10 years of continuous service in the same level of the pay matrix. The second limb decides the date in most real cases, and illustration A(i) in paragraph 27 is built on it.

The reason it matters is that a promotion resets the clock in the employee’s favour. An employee promoted in the eighth year of service, who then remains in that level, completes 10 years in the level in the eighteenth year. The second financial upgradation falls due then, not in the twentieth year, because 10 years in the same level expire first. Without the second limb the same employee would wait two more years for the same money.

Promotions count against the total of three. Paragraph 8 goes one step further and provides that a promotion earned into a post carrying the same pay level in the promotional hierarchy under the Recruitment Rules is counted for the purposes of the scheme, even though it moved the employee no distance up the matrix. Paragraph 5 runs the other way for the 7th CPC merger: a promotion earned, or an upgradation granted, in the past to a grade that now sits in the same level of the pay matrix because of the merger of pay scales is ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under the scheme.

The scheme’s own worked illustrations

Paragraph 27 of Annexure-I carries three illustrations issued by the Department of Personnel and Training itself, and they are the authoritative answer to the sequencing questions that arise in practice.

Illustration A(i) is the 10-year-in-the-same-level rule doing its work: the employee reaches the second upgradation at 18 years, two years before the nominal 20-year mark. Illustration B shows the counter-case, where a first upgradation followed by a promotion leaves the employee back on the 20 and 30 year schedule, with a note that two promotions earned before 20 years reduce the entitlement to a single upgradation, at 10 years in the level from the date of the second promotion or at the thirtieth year, whichever is earlier.

The level reached, and what it is worth

The scheme grants the immediate next higher level in the hierarchy of the pay matrix as given in Part A of the Schedule to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, under paragraph 2 of Annexure-I, and the ceiling is Level 15 under paragraph 3. Level 15 spans Rs. 1,82,200 to Rs. 2,24,100 and corresponds to the Higher Administrative Grade, so no financial upgradation under the scheme reaches Level 16 or above.

Paragraph 2 states the limitation without softening it: where regular promotion is not between two successive pay levels, the level at the time of financial upgradation can be lower than the level available on regular promotion, and the higher level attached to the next promotion post is given only at the time of regular promotion. The gap this creates is the scheme’s central grievance, and it is measurable.

Consider an employee in Level 6 drawing Rs. 44,900, whose next promotional post in the cadre carries Level 8. The first financial upgradation gives one increment in Level 6, taking the pay to Rs. 46,200, and then places the employee at Rs. 46,200 in Level 7. A regular promotion to the Level 8 post would have taken the same Rs. 46,200 and placed it at Rs. 47,600, the entry cell of Level 8. The difference is Rs. 1,400 a month in basic pay, which at the current dearness allowance rate of 60% is Rs. 2,240 a month in basic pay and dearness allowance together, before the gap compounds through every later annual increment and into the pension.

Pay fixation on an upgradation

Pay on a financial upgradation is fixed under Rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, the same rule that governs pay fixation on promotion. Paragraph 4(i) of Annexure-I extends the benefit of promotion-style fixation to the scheme, and paragraph 6 confirms that fixation on or after 1 January 2016 is made under Rule 13, read with Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 13/02/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 27 July 2017. The method is two steps: one increment in the existing level, then placement at the cell in the next higher level equal to the figure so reached, or at the next cell above it if no equal cell exists.

Paragraph 7 preserves the timing option. A government servant has an option under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1) to have pay fixed in the higher level either from the date of the upgradation or from the date of the next increment, that is 1 July or 1 January, subject to the provisions of the scheme. The choice is the same arithmetic as the option on promotion and turns on where the upgradation falls in the increment year.

Paragraph 4 also settles what happens when a real promotion arrives later. Under paragraph 4(ii) there is no further fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion if the promotion is to the same pay level already granted under the scheme, so the employee gains the post and not a second pay rise. Under paragraph 4(iii), where the promotion post carries a higher level, the employee is placed in that level at a cell equal to the figure being drawn on account of MACP, or at the next higher cell if no equal cell exists, and may again elect between the date of promotion and the date of the next increment.

The Very Good benchmark

The benchmark for a financial upgradation is Very Good, for all levels, for every upgradation falling due on or after 25 July 2016, under paragraph 17(i) of Annexure-I to the Office Memorandum of 22 October 2019. The bar was raised from Good on the recommendation in paragraph 5.1.45 of the Seventh Central Pay Commission report, by Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 28 September 2016, and 25 July 2016 is the date of the Department of Expenditure resolution accepting that recommendation. The revised benchmark applies to the appraisal reports for 2016-17 and subsequent years.

For the earlier appraisal years the 2009 guidelines continue to govern, and paragraph 17(ii) quotes them. Those guidelines were never uniform. The benchmark of Good applied up to grade pay Rs. 6,600 in pay band 3, and the benchmark was Very Good for financial upgradation to grade pay Rs. 7,600 and above. The table in paragraph 17(ii) carries that division forward into the pay matrix:

An officer whose upgradation is being considered at Level 12 or above therefore faces a Very Good bar across every reckoned year, including years long before 2016. An employee at Level 11 or below faces Good for 2015-16 and earlier and Very Good from 2016-17. Paragraph 17(ii) puts the assessment in the hands of the departmental screening committee, which assesses the appraisal reports in the reckoning period. The detail of how a shortfall is handled is in the MACP benchmark article.

The screening committee and its calendar

A screening committee constituted in each department decides MACP cases, and paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum of 22 October 2019 fixes its composition: a chairperson and two members, the members holding posts at least one level above the level at which the upgradation is being considered and not below the rank of Under Secretary equivalent in the government, with the chairperson generally a level above the members.

Paragraph 5 allocates the power to approve what the committee recommends. Where the appointing authority is the President and the committee sits in the secretariat of a ministry or department, approval is delegated to the secretary of that ministry or department. Where the appointing authority is the President and the committee sits in an organisation such as a field office or an attached or subordinate office, approval is delegated to the head of that organisation. In every other case the power stays with the appointing authority.

Paragraph 6 fixes the calendar, and it is the answer to the most common practical question about the scheme. The committee meets twice in a financial year, in order to prevent undue strain on the administrative machinery. Cases maturing in the first half of a financial year, April to September, are taken up by the committee meeting in the first week of January. Cases maturing in the second half, October to March, are processed by the committee meeting in the first week of July. So an upgradation falling due in August is considered in the preceding January, and one falling due in December is considered in the preceding July.

What counts as regular service

Regular service for the purposes of the scheme commences from the date of joining a post in the direct entry grade on a regular basis, whether by direct recruitment, absorption or re-employment, under paragraph 9 of Annexure-I. Service rendered on a casual, ad hoc or contract basis before regular appointment, and time spent on pre-appointment training, is not taken into reckoning.

Paragraph 9 then makes one allowance and attaches one condition to it. Past continuous regular service in the same or another central government department, in a post carrying the same pay level, before regular appointment in a new department and without a break, counts towards qualifying service for the purposes of this scheme only, and not for regular promotions. The benefit is not considered until the probation period in the new post is satisfactorily completed.

Paragraph 10 draws the boundary at the edge of the central government: service rendered in a state government, a statutory body, an autonomous body or a public sector organisation before appointment in the central government does not count towards regular service. Paragraph 11 runs the other way and is generous, including within regular service all periods spent on deputation, foreign service, study leave and all other kinds of leave duly sanctioned by the competent authority.

Two movement cases are settled separately. Paragraph 22 provides that an employee declared surplus and appointed in the same or a lower pay scale in a new organisation carries the regular service of the previous organisation forward. Paragraph 23 does the same for a transfer, including a unilateral transfer on request, with a sting in the tail: where an official transferring on their own volition to a lower post is reverted from the promoted post before being relieved, that past promotion is ignored for the purposes of the scheme in the new office.

Coverage and the exclusions

The scheme applies to all regularly appointed Group A, Group B and Group C central government civilian employees, except officers of the Organised Group A Services, under paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum of 22 October 2019. Casual employees, including those granted temporary status, and employees appointed in the government on an ad hoc or contract basis do not qualify for its benefits.

The Seventh Central Pay Commission gave the reason for the Organised Group A exclusion in paragraph 5.1.44 of its report: MACP continues to be applicable to all employees up to the Higher Administrative Grade level except members of Organised Group A Services, where initial promotions up to the Non-Functional Selection Grade are time bound and hence assured. Those officers draw non-functional upgradation, which is keyed to the posting of a junior Indian Administrative Service batch at the centre rather than to years of service, and the two schemes do not overlap.

Three further coverage rules sit in Annexure-I. Paragraph 12 extends the scheme to work-charged employees where their service conditions are comparable with the staff of a regular establishment. Paragraph 13 allows an existing time-bound promotion scheme, an in-situ promotion scheme, or any other promotion scheme running for a particular category of employees, to continue if the administrative authorities decide to retain it, or to be replaced by MACP, but forbids the two from running concurrently. Paragraph 14 makes the scheme directly applicable only to central government civilian employees, and allows extension to employees of central autonomous and statutory bodies under the administrative control of a ministry or department, subject to the conditions in Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2010-Estt.(D) dated 3 August 2010.

The armed forces run the scheme on their own service points. Paragraph 5.2.10 of the Seventh Central Pay Commission report declined to increase the number of upgradations for defence forces personnel and kept them at 8, 16 and 24 years of service, against the 10, 20 and 30 years on the civil side, with the upgradation placing the person in the immediate next level of the defence pay matrix and pay fixed on the same principle as a regular promotion.

Refusal of a regular promotion

Refusing an offered regular promotion costs an employee the scheme’s benefit, and paragraph 24 of Annexure-I splits the consequence according to when the refusal happens. Where a regular promotion has been offered and was refused before the employee became entitled to an upgradation, no financial upgradation is allowed at all, because the employee has not stagnated for lack of opportunities.

Where the financial upgradation has already been allowed on account of stagnation and the employee subsequently refuses a promotion, that refusal is not a ground to withdraw the upgradation already granted. The employee is instead barred from being considered for any further financial upgradation until agreeing to be considered for promotion again, and the second or next upgradation is then deferred by the length of the debarment. So the cost of a late refusal is a delay measured by the refusal itself, not the loss of what has been granted.

Stepping up, and its single exception

No stepping up of pay in the level is admissible where a junior draws more pay than a senior on account of pay fixation under the scheme. Paragraph 9 of the Office Memorandum of 22 October 2019 states the bar, and paragraph 20 of Annexure-I repeats it as a consequence of the upgradation being purely personal to the employee and having no relevance to seniority. This is a real difference from a regular promotion, where the ordinary stepping up of pay remedy can correct such an anomaly.

Paragraph 20 then carves out one transitional exception, tied to the change of pay structure on 1 January 2016. Where a senior government servant granted MACP to a higher grade pay before 1 January 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than a junior granted MACP to the higher level on or after 1 January 2016, the senior’s pay is stepped up to the pay fixed for the junior, with effect from the date of the junior’s MACP. Four conditions must all hold: both belong to the same cadre and are in the same pay level on grant of MACP; the existing and revised pay structures of the lower and higher posts are identical; the senior was drawing equal or more pay than the junior at the time of the grant; and the anomaly is a direct result of Fundamental Rule 22 or another rule regulating pay fixation on the grant. A proviso closes the obvious loophole: where the junior was drawing more pay in the existing structure by virtue of advance increments, the senior’s pay is not stepped up.

Deferral, disciplinary proceedings and reservation

An upgradation can be held back, and the delay cascades. Paragraph 15 of Annexure-I provides that where a financial upgradation is deferred and not allowed after 10 years in a level, because the employee is found unfit or because of departmental proceedings, the subsequent financial upgradation is also deferred to the extent of the delay in granting the first. A deferral at the first stage therefore moves the second and third upgradations back by the same period rather than being absorbed.

Paragraph 18 places the scheme under the ordinary disciplinary rules. In the matter of disciplinary or penalty proceedings, grant of the benefit is subject to the rules governing normal promotion, and such cases are regulated under the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the instructions issued under them. A pending departmental inquiry or a period of suspension is handled the same way it would be for a promotion case.

Paragraph 19 excludes reservation. Because the scheme is merely placement on a personal basis in the immediate higher pay level and does not amount to an actual or functional promotion, no reservation order or roster applies to it, and its benefits extend uniformly to all eligible Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees. The rules of reservation in promotion are applied at the time of regular promotion, and it is not mandatory to associate Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members in the screening committee that considers MACP cases. Paragraph 25 covers a related situation: employees holding higher posts purely on an ad hoc basis are considered by the screening committee along with everyone else, and may be allowed the benefit on reversion to the lower post.

Effect on pension and terminal benefits

Pay drawn in the level of the pay matrix under the scheme is the basis for determining terminal benefits for a retiring employee, under paragraph 21 of Annexure-I. There is no carve-out and no restricted proportion: the higher basic pay counts in full.

That makes the upgradation worth considerably more than the monthly difference suggests. Pension under the Old Pension Scheme runs at 50% of the emoluments last drawn, and retirement gratuity at a quarter of emoluments for every completed six-monthly period of service, so the Rs. 1,400 monthly gap in the Level 6 example above carries into the pension for life and into the gratuity as a one-time amount. For an employee under the National Pension System, the higher basic pay raises both the employee and the employer contributions to the corpus for the remainder of the career.

Deputation

An employee on deputation need not revert to the parent department to take a financial upgradation, under paragraph 26 of Annexure-I. The employee may exercise a fresh option to draw either the pay of the level of the pay matrix attached to the post held on deputation, or the pay in the level admissible under the scheme, whichever is more beneficial.

Where the employee opts for the MACP level, the deputation (duty) allowance is not computed on the upgraded pay. Paragraph 6.1.2 of the Department of Personnel and Training consolidated guidelines OM No. DOPT-1711629234974 dated 28 March 2024 provides that where the parent-cadre pay has been upgraded up to Level 13A on account of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, non-functional upgradation or the non-functional selection grade, and the officer has opted for the upgraded pay, that pay is left out of the allowance, which is computed instead on the pre-upgradation pay carried forward by annual increments on the presumptive pay. Paragraph 6.1.3 gives an option where the upgradation is to Level 14 or above: the upgraded pay without the allowance, or the pre-upgradation pay with it, whichever is more beneficial. Both come from DoPT OM No. 2/11/2017-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 15 March 2021. This is the point at which the two calculations have to be run against each other, because the beneficial option is not always the higher level.

The Supreme Court on the hierarchy question

The Supreme Court settled in 2020 that MACP grants the immediate next level in the pay matrix hierarchy and not the level of the next promotional post. In Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020 arising out of SLP(C) No. 21803 of 2014, decided on 5 March 2020, a bench of R. Banumathi, A. S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy JJ set aside a batch of tribunal and High Court orders that had granted the promotional-hierarchy benefit.

The reasoning turned on the words of the scheme. At paragraph 27 the Court observed that the words used are placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands, and that the term “grade pay in the next promotional post” is “conspicuously absent in the entire body of the MACP Scheme”. At paragraph 28 it added that if employees were entitled to the grade pay of the next promotional hierarchy without the commensurate responsibilities as a matter of routine, it would have an adverse impact on the efficiency of administration. At paragraph 27 the Court also refused the attempt to combine the two schemes, holding that the respondents could not be permitted to cherry-pick the beneficial features of the old ACP scheme while taking advantage of the beneficial features of MACP.

Earlier decisions of tribunals and High Courts had relied on an order in Raj Pal, whose special leave petition had been dismissed without the merits being examined, and the Court held at paragraph 51 that those courts had erred in interfering with government policy on that footing. The judgment did not close every question. At paragraph 53 the Court recorded that certain anomalies in the implementation of the scheme had been placed before the Joint Committee constituted in the Department of Personnel and Training, and directed the Union of India and that department to consider them and take a decision in accordance with law. The consolidated guidelines of 22 October 2019, which predate the judgment by four months, state the position the Court went on to uphold, and they remain the operative order.

The Assured Career Progression scheme it replaced

The Assured Career Progression scheme, notified by Office Memorandum dated 9 August 1999, gave two financial upgradations, after 12 years of regular service and after a further 12 years from the first, to Group B, Group C and Group D employees, in the promotional hierarchy. Its conditions in Annexure-I mirrored what MACP later adopted: paragraph 8 made the upgradation purely personal with no bearing on seniority, and paragraph 12 excluded the reservation roster. Paragraph 5.1 restricted the benefit to employees who had not received regular promotion in the prescribed periods, and shut it off entirely once two regular promotions had been received.

MACP superseded it with effect from 1 September 2008 on the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, and the change ran in two directions at once.

More upgradations, sooner, but a smaller step each: that trade-off is why the replacement was welcomed in some cadres and resented in others, and it is the trade-off the Supreme Court declined to let employees unpick. Under the 7th CPC structure the scheme was translated from grade pays into levels without altering its substance, and paragraph 6.1 of Annexure-I to the 2019 guidelines deals with the resulting transitional cases: where an employee had been granted a financial upgradation to the next higher grade pay under the 2009 scheme and the substantive post was then upgraded to a higher level on the 7th CPC recommendations, the earlier MACP is re-fixed at the next higher level of the pay matrix. The guidelines illustrate this with a Postal Inspector who had been granted a first MACP at grade pay Rs. 4,600 and moves to Level 8 after the post itself was upgraded from grade pay Rs. 4,200 to grade pay Rs. 4,600, that is Level 7.

MACP against promotion and non-functional upgradation

Three separate mechanisms move a central government employee up the pay matrix, and they are frequently confused because two of them are pay-only.

The practical reading is that a promotion is always the better outcome where one is available, and MACP is the fall-back that guarantees pay progression when it is not. The full comparison is in the MACP vs promotion article.

Bearing on the 8th Central Pay Commission

MACP is among the matters the staff-side federations have put before the 8th Central Pay Commission, and those are demands rather than decisions. The recurring asks are a fourth financial upgradation later in a career, a return to the promotional hierarchy in place of the pay-matrix hierarchy that the Supreme Court upheld in 2020, a reduction in the qualifying spans, and a reversal of the benchmark from Very Good to Good.

The Commission was constituted on 3 November 2025 under Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, with its report due on 3 May 2027. No recommendation on the scheme had been made as on 8 August 2026, and MACP continues to operate exactly as the consolidated guidelines of 22 October 2019 set it out. Any change is a matter for the Commission’s report and for the government’s decision on it, and no 8th CPC figure on the scheme exists to state.

One recommendation of the previous commission is worth separating from the scheme as it stands. Paragraph 5.1.46 of the Seventh Central Pay Commission report proposed withholding annual increments, as an efficiency bar rather than a penalty, from employees who fail to meet the benchmark for either MACP or a regular promotion within the first 20 years of service. The consolidated guidelines of 22 October 2019 carry no such provision, and the efficiency bar as it operates today rests on the ordinary service rules rather than on that recommendation.

Related Articles

• MACP vs promotion
• MACP benchmark
• Assured Career Progression
• Non-functional upgradation (NFU)
• Promotion
• Departmental promotion committee
• Pay fixation on promotion
• Option for pay fixation on promotion
• Fundamental Rule 22
• Stepping up of pay
• Date of next increment
• Annual increment
• Efficiency bar
• CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016
• Pay matrix
• Pay fixation
• Grade pay
• Pay band
• Pay level and salary structure
• Annual performance appraisal report
• Seniority
• Probation in central government service
• Qualifying service
• Deputation in central government
• Study leave
• Suspension
• Departmental inquiry
• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
• Reservation roster in promotion
• Cadre review
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Central government pension
• Pension calculation
• Old Pension Scheme
• National Pension System
• Gratuity for central government employees
• House building advance
• Dearness allowance
• Take-home salary of central government employees
• Central government employees in India
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Department of Expenditure
• 6th Central Pay Commission
• 7th Central Pay Commission
• 8th Central Pay Commission
• Central Pay Commission
• 7th CPC salary calculator
• MACP calculator
• Pay fixation on promotion calculator

External references

• Department of Personnel and Training
• DoPT Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 22 October 2019, consolidated MACP guidelines, circulated by the Railway Board as RBE No. 16/2020
• Report of the Seventh Central Pay Commission
• Supreme Court of India, judgments by date
• Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance
• Central Administrative Tribunal

References

1. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 22 October 2019, “Consolidated guidelines regarding Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees”, with Annexure-I (paragraphs 1 to 27) setting out the scheme and the conditions for grant of financial upgradation.
2. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19 May 2009, introducing the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme with effect from 1 September 2008.
3. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum dated 9 August 1999, introducing the Assured Career Progression scheme (two upgradations, after 12 years and a further 12 years, for Group B, Group C and Group D employees).
4. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 28 September 2016, enhancing the benchmark for financial upgradation from Good to Very Good with effect from 25 July 2016.
5. Report of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.46, on the continuation of MACP at 10, 20 and 30 years, the movement to the immediate next level in the pay matrix, the exclusion of the Organised Group A Services, and the enhanced benchmark.
6. Rule 13, Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, notified by the Department of Expenditure on 25 July 2016, on fixation of pay on promotion, applied to MACP by paragraph 4(i) of Annexure-I.
7. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 13/02/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 27 July 2017, on pay fixation and the option relating to the date of the next increment.
8. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1711629234974 dated 28 March 2024, consolidated guidelines on deputation and foreign service, paragraphs 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 (deputation (duty) allowance where parent-cadre pay has been upgraded under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme), sourced there to Office Memorandum No. 2/11/2017-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 15 March 2021.
9. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2010-Estt.(D) dated 3 August 2010, on the conditions for extending the scheme to central autonomous and statutory bodies.
10. Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21803 of 2014) and connected appeals, Supreme Court of India, decided 5 March 2020.