Service Law: Delhi Development Authority – Assured Career Progression Scheme – In the instant case, the employees (respondents) sought applicability of Assured Career Progression Scheme, which if applies, will give them the benefit of grant of second financial up-gradation w.e.f 03.01.2009 – On the other hand, appellant-authority sought application of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme upon the ground that the same become operative from 01.09.2008 – Respondents successfully filed application before the Central Administrative Tribunal – Appellant authority approached High Court – High Court relied on the decision in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn, in which case it was held that the Armed Forces Personnel had to be given benefit of MACP from the date of the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission i.e. from 01.01.2006 and not from 1.09.2008 as decided by the Central Government and therefore upon the same logic, in the instant case the MACP shall come into effect from 01.01.2006 – Held: None of the employees actually earned a second financial up-gradation, though they undoubtedly became eligible for consideration but the eligibility does not ipso facto translate into entitlement as per the scheme of the ACP and therefore second ACP up-gradation was not automatic but dependent on external factors, eg. employees’ record – The contention of the employees that they had vested right is not tenable as benefit under the ACP scheme was by way of incentive granted to avoid stagnation with respect to those employee who could not get promoted for an ascertained period of time – Such benefit by way of incentive are not embodied under rules but is in the form of executive order and since MACP is aimed to benefit a sizable section of the employees, and not only the respondent, as in this case, hence the same cannot be interfered with. Service Law: Assured Career Progression Scheme – Policy Behind Financial Up-Gradation – Financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme was available only if regular promotion during the stipulated intervals, 12 years and 24 years, was not granted to an employee – Its intent was to extend relief for stagnation faced by employees’ due inadequate promotional probabilities – A singular feature of the ACP scheme was that while the benefit was pay based, the employee had to fulfil the prescribed criteria to be eligible for the benefits.
Service Law: Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – Essential features and distinction from – Held: Assured Career Progression Scheme – Distinction – The noticeable feature of the MACP Scheme is that three increments are to be granted to employees on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service – According to the MACP scheme, financial up-gradation is admissible on completion of 10 years of continuous service -in the same grade pay – The distinction between the ACP and the MACP scheme is not only with respect to the number of benefits (i.e., two under the ACP scheme, and three under the MACP scheme) but also that the former assured the promotional grade, where the latter (MACP scheme) only assured higher pay.
Delhi Development Authority – Scope of Application of MACP upon its employees – DDA is an autonomous – statutory-organization – It largely follows the Central Government’s policies, in respect of pay and allowances, and other benefits for its employees, however, any revision of pay-structure or revision in other terms and conditions, of Central Government personnel cannot and do not automatically apply to the DDA – It has to consider the new or fresh scheme formulated by the Central Government, and adopt it, if necessary, after appropriate adaptation, to suit its needs. State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [1983]
2 SCR 287; Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah [1997] Supp (3) SCR 63; Shankarsan Dash v. Union Of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991]
2 SCR 567; Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India [1984] 3 SCR 252; Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421; Union of India v. R.K. Sharma (2021) 5 SCC 579 – relied on.
Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (2018) 11 SCC 99 : [2017] 12 SCR 421 –distinguished.
Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand 2012
(8) SCC 417 : [2012] 7 SCR 307; State of U.P. & Ors. v. U.P. Sales Tax Officer Grade-II Officer 2003 (6) SCC
250 : [2003] 3 SCR 617; Secretary Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. v. Grade-I officers Associations & Ors. 2014 (13) SCC 296 : [2014] 8 SCR 976; State of Tamilnadu v. Arumugham (1998) 2 SCC 198 : [1997]
5 Suppl. SCR 295; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association 2002 (6) SCC 72 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 118; Himachal RTC v. Retired Employees Union (2021) 4 SCC 502; Govt of AP v. N. Subbarayadu 2008 (14) SCC 702; Ami Lal Bhat v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 614; State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad (1990) 3 SCC 368; Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (1994) 4 SCC 212; Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai (2001) 9 SCC 356; Council
of
Scientific
Industrial
Research v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (2009) 3 SCC
35 – 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.