In a recent ruling, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) rendered a significant decision pertaining to the financial progression of Personnel Below Officers Rank (PBOR) in the Indian armed forces. The case, Chanchal Singh v. Union of India and Others, saw the AFT at Chandigarh presiding over the matter, addressing the contentious issue surrounding the grant of financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).
Justices Shekhar Dhawan, Sudhir Mittal, and Air Marshal Manvendra Singh jointly delivered the verdict, emphasizing that the refusal to undergo a promotion cadre test bars defence personnel from periodic financial upgradations as stipulated under the MACP.
The heart of the matter revolved around the assertion that financial upgradations, scheduled at intervals of 8, 16, and 24 years of service, were designed to combat career stagnation. However, individuals exhibiting reluctance towards promotion cadre tests or expressing unwillingness for promotion found themselves excluded from the benefits outlined in the MACP scheme.
The tribunal underscored the essence of the MACP initiative, highlighting its intent to alleviate prolonged career stagnation. Yet, it was made explicit that the entitlement to financial upgradation remained contingent upon adherence to the conditions set forth by the Cadre Controlling Authority.
Furthermore, the AFT referenced pertinent judicial precedents, notably the Supreme Court’s stance in Union of India v. Manju Arora and Another, emphasizing that the refusal of a regular promotion prior to eligibility for financial upgradation would preclude individuals from such benefits.
The verdict, handed down on May 30, resolved the reference against the petitioner, Chanchal Singh, who had conveyed his unwillingness for a Promotion Cadre Course. Consequently, the AFT affirmed that cases involving refusals for promotion or promotion cadre tests would be treated separately, aligning with established government policies and regulations.
Advocate SN Sharma, representing the applicant, presented the case on behalf of the Army personnel, while Deputy Solicitor General of India Jagjot Singh Lalli, along with Senior Panel Counsels KK Bheniwala and FS Virk, stood for the Union of India.
In essence, the ruling crystallized the intricate interplay between career progression, compliance with regulatory frameworks, and the overarching objective of ensuring merit-based advancement within the armed forces.
