[2025:RJ-JP:47602-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13795/2025 Tikam Singh S/o Kamal Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Nagla Chittar, Uchchain, Bharatpur, Rajasthan 321302 At Present Posted As Lhf, 39, Field Amn Depot, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defense, Department Of Defense, South Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Dte Gen Of Ord Services (Os-8C), Master Gen Of Ord Branch, Integrated Ihq Of Mod (Army), Dhq Po New Delhi- 110011. 3. Aoc Records, Secunderabad, 900453 C/o 56 Apo. 4. Lt. Col, Administrative Officer For Commanding Officer, 39, Fields Ammunition Depot, Bharatpur 900309 (56 Army Post Office), 321001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.S.Sinha with Mr.Mayank Kamwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 25/11/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2025, whereby the Original Application No.315/2025 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’). [2025:RJ-JP:47602-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-13795/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the non grant of First MACP giving him the continuous cause of action and, therefore, since the First MACP has been denied de hors the rules, therefore, he has rightly filed the OA before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the Original Application on the ground of delay, as non grant of MACP is a recurring loss to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted the benefits of First MACP, which was due to him since the year 2011. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 10.01.2008, however, the petitioner has shown his unwillingness for promotion and requested for his “IN SITU” promotion. He submits that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of Second MACP on completion of 20 years of service with effect from 24.08.2021. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has approached the learned Tribunal after palpable delay of 15 years and no miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, therefore, he submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 6. We have considered the submissions made at bar and gone through the order dated 28.07.2025 along-with the relevant record of the case. 7. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner has entered into service with the respondent-Department on 23.08.2001, thereafter, the petitioner was promoted by the respondents vide [2025:RJ-JP:47602-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-13795/2025] order dated 10.01.2008. The petitioner in pursuance of his unwillingness, forego the promotion. The petitioner was granted the benefit of Second MACP on completion of 20 years of service with effect from 24.08.2021. After getting the second MACP, the petitioner has filed the representation/application for ‘IN SITU’ promotion on 14.02.2025, which was rejected by the respondent- Department and, therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing an OA. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties have rejected the OA on the ground of delay of 15 years. 8. It is also noted that the petitioner would have been entitled for First MACP in the year 2011 if he would not have been granted the promotion prior to that. Since, the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 10.01.2008 and he did not avail the benefit to the same by showing his unwillingness therefore, he was not granted the benefit of First MACP. 9. After completion of 20 years of service, the respondents have granted the benefit of Second MACP in the year 2021. After getting the benefit of Second MACP, the petitioner filed an application for ‘IN SITU’ promotion and the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rejected the OA on the ground of delay of 15 years. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal as the petitioner has not approached the learned Tribunal in time for grant of First Promotion/MACP, which was due to him in the year 2011. [2025:RJ-JP:47602-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-13795/2025] 11. We also note that there is no application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay before the learned Tribunal. 12. The present writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J Monika/9