Service Law – MACP Scheme – Claim of grade pay of Rs.6600/- – Clause 8.1 of the scheme provides that the grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of upgradations under MACP Scheme – However, the respondents (in PB-2) were granted grade pay of Rs.6600 for PB-3 under MACP Scheme by the High Court – High Court observed that the next promotional post carries a grade pay of Rs.6600, when the third financial upgradation is due to an employee, it has to be of the next promotional post in the hierarchy as per the Recruitment Rules – On appeal, held: It was specifically observed and held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair that MACP has nothing to do with the next promotional post and what the employee would be entitled would be the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – As per clause 8.1 of the MACP scheme grade pay of PB-2 and PB-3 would be Rs.5400/- – The High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the grade pay of Rs.6600, the grade pay which was available to the next promotional post – Therefore, judgment and the order passed by the High Court set aside – Respondents entitled to the next grade pay of Rs.5400 as per clause
8.1 – CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. At the outset it is required to be noted that the issue involved in the present appeal is as such squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair. By detailed judgment and order this Court has interpreted the very MACP Scheme and it is observed and held that under the MACP Scheme employees are entitled to the immediate next higher grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. It is specifically observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that MACP has nothing to do with the next promotional post and what the employee would be entitled would be the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. As per clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme ‘consequently upon the implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations, grade pay of PB-2 and PB-3 would be Rs.5400. It specifically provides that the grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of upgradations under the MACP Scheme’. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 & 2 as PB-2 shall be entitled to the next grade pay of Rs.5400 as per clause 8.1 and as per Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The High Court has allowed the grade pay of Rs.6600 by considering the next promotion post of Assistant Director i.e., Deputy Director which carries a grade pay of Rs.6600. However, the aforesaid interpretation would be contrary to the MACP Scheme. On considering the relevant clauses of the MACP Scheme, it appears that the MACP Scheme envisages placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Thus, the High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the grade pay of Rs.6600 the grade pay which was available to the next promotional post as Deputy Director. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as per PB-2 were entitled to the grade pay of Rs.5400 as PB- 3 as per clause 8.1. [Para 7][726-C-H; 727-A]
2. By the impugned judgment and order and while granting grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 virtually, the High Court has modified the MACP Scheme which has been framed by the Government on the recommendations of the expert body like the pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme. As observed and held by this Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair the ACP which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of Government policy and interfering with the recommendations of the expert body like the pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme would have serious impact on the public exchequer. It is further observed that the recommendations of the pay commission for the MACP Scheme have been accepted by the Government and implemented. It is further observed that therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Government policies in the form of MACP Scheme which was after accepting the Sixth Central Pay Commission. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and the binding decision of this Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1& 2 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, so long as Clause 8.1 and the grade pay mentioned as per Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 stands, the employee shall be entitled to the grade pay accordingly. Therefore, if any of the employees is aggrieved by Clause 8.1 and if in his opinion, there is any anomaly the same has to be challenged by the aggrieved employee, which can be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. However, as the same is not under challenge, this Court has to go by the MACP Scheme as it is. [Para 8][727-A-G] Union of India and others Vs M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020)
5 SCC 421 – relied on.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma (2011)
4 SCC 257 : [2011] 3 SCR 489 – referred to.
National Council of Educational Research & Training Anr. vs. Anita Gupta & Anr 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4720 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.