IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19012 of 2026 Avimanyu Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 02.07.2026 01. By means of this application, the Petitioner calls in question the judgment and order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00154 of 2024, whereby the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and the challenge laid to the withdrawal of the third financial upgradation granted under the MACP Scheme, together with the consequential denial of arrears, was negatived. 2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the withdrawal of the MACP-III benefit granted to the Petitioner with effect from 27.05.2013, after his retirement and without affording him an opportunity of hearing, was arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law. It was further submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the illegality in reopening a settled service benefit after several years and, therefore, erred in dismissing the Original Application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that upon retrospective grant of the BCR benefit, the Petitioner's service benefits required re-computation in accordance with the applicable rules. On such re- computation, the Petitioner was found ineligible for the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. It was accordingly contended that the consequential withdrawal of the said benefit was lawful and that the Tribunal committed no error warranting interference by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. 5. The material facts are not in dispute. The Petitioner entered service on 27.05.1983. During service, he was granted financial upgradation under the TBOP Scheme and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on 28.12.2007. On the basis of the service profile then obtaining, the competent authority granted him the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 27.05.2013 upon completion of thirty years of service. The matter, however, did not rest there. The record further reveals that disputes concerning grant of TBOP/BCR benefits to similarly situated employees ultimately culminated in proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon the directions issued therein by the Department of Posts for extending the benefit to similarly situated seniors on parity with their juniors, the Petitioner was retrospectively granted the benefit of BCR with effect from 01.07.1995 on parity with his junior, Sri Dinabandhu Saran. The consequential monetary benefits were thereafter worked out and sanctioned in his favour. 6. Once such retrospective BCR benefit was extended, the Petitioner’s service profile, as it existed on the date when MACP-III had earlier been granted, necessarily underwent a corresponding revision. The authorities were, therefore, required to undertake a fresh exercise of pay fixation and determination of the financial upgradations admissible to him under the governing scheme. It was in the course of such exercise that the competent authority came to the conclusion that the MACP-III benefit granted earlier with effect from 27.05.2013 was not admissible in view of the retrospective grant of BCR and the clarifications governing implementation of the MACP Scheme. Consequently, while recalculating the Petitioner’s dues and arrears, the said benefit was not taken into account. This position was specifically communicated to the Petitioner by letter dated 20.06.2022 and was thereafter reiterated by the communication dated 31.01.2024. 7. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the MACP-III benefit, having been granted in the year 2013 and having continued for several years, could not have been withdrawn after his retirement and, in any event, such withdrawal could not have been effected without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Attractive though the submission may appear at first blush, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the same. 8. The record does not disclose that the authorities sought to revisit the Petitioner’s entitlement on account of any misconduct, suppression of material facts or misrepresentation attributable to him. The exercise undertaken was a direct consequence of the retrospective extension of BCR benefits flowing from the implementation of the judicial directions referred to above. Once the Petitioner’s service benefits were retrospectively revised with effect from 01.07.1995, the authorities were under the obligation to rework the consequential financial benefits flowing therefrom. The withdrawal of MACP-III was thus not an independent penal action, but a consequential adjustment arising out of the revised service position of the Petitioner. The foundational facts being undisputed, no prejudice has been shown to have been caused merely on account of absence of a prior notice. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Tribunal that no interference is warranted on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice alone. 9. We also find no merit in the Petitioner’s challenge to the calculation of arrears. The claim for payment of an additional sum of Rs.72,157/- rests entirely upon the assumption that the MACP-III benefit ought to have been retained even after retrospective grant of BCR. Once the competent authority came to the conclusion that the said benefit was not admissible and consequently excluded it while reworking the Petitioner’s dues, the resultant calculation followed as a matter of course. Significantly, the Petitioner has not pointed out any specific arithmetical error or computational defect in the revised calculation; the dispute is essentially directed against the underlying decision regarding admissibility of MACP-III. 10. The learned Tribunal examined the matter from the aforesaid perspective and found that the action of the authorities was traceable to the implementation of the revised service benefits granted to the Petitioner and the applicable departmental instructions governing financial upgradations. 11. Having examined the record, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the said view. No perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer