Service Law – Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme vis-à-vis Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme – ACP Scheme was withdrawn and superseded by MACP Scheme – Respondents given beneficial pay upgradation as per MACP Scheme, however claimed the benefit of Grade Pay of the next promotional hierarchy following the erstwhile ACP Scheme – Granted by different Benches of CAT relying upon Union of India v. Raj Pal – Challenged by appellants – Dismissed by High Courts – On appeal, held: Though ACP and MACP Schemes are intended to provide relief against stagnation, both have different features – MACP Scheme was recommended by Sixth Central Pay Commission to bring systematic changes in the existing ACP Scheme so that all employees irrespective of existing hierarchical structure in their organisations/cadre get the same benefit – Words used in the MACP Scheme are “placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands” – Term “Grade Pay in the next promotional post” is conspicuously absent in the entire body of the MACP Scheme – Respondents’ contention that the benefit of MACP Scheme is referable to the promotional post, is de hors the MACP Scheme – When the expert body like Pay Commission comprehensively examined all the issues, various representations and the disparities, the court should not interfere with its recommendations – MACP Scheme has not been challenged by the respondents – Further, Raj Pal’s case was dismissed by the Supreme Court on technical ground without any decision on merits and thus could not have been taken as a precedent – No grounds made out to show that the MACP Scheme granting financial upgradation in the next grade pay is arbitrary – Impugned orders set aside – Constitution of India – Art.141 – First Schedule of Central Civil Services (CCS) (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Service Law – Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme – Distinction between – Discussed.
Constitution of India – Art.141 – ‘Law’ under – Held: Law declared by the Supreme Court is a principle laid down by the court and it is this principle which has the effect of a precedent – A principle is a proposition delivered after examination of the matter on merits – Service Law.
Service Law – Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme – Object and salient features of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In order to bring systematic changes in the existing scheme of ACP so that all employees irrespective of existing hierarchical structure in their organisations/cadre get the same benefit, MACP was recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission. Both ACP and MACP Schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief from stagnation in the form of financial benefits. Under the MACP Scheme, financial upgradations are granted at three regular intervals on completion of 10-20-30 years of service without promotion. Hence, it is also intended to ensure that the employees are adequately incentivised to work efficiently despite not getting promotion for want of promotional avenue. The change in policy brought about by supersession of the ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is after well-deliberated and well-documented recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. Considering the various issues in the implementation of the ACP Scheme, the Pay Commission expressed its views “the only other way is to bring systematic changes in the existing Scheme of ACP so that all the employees irrespective of the existing hierarchy structure in their organisations/cadres, get some benefit under it”. The Commission therefore, recommended that the existing Scheme of ACP be continued with the modifications indicated thereon in the Report that the financial upgradation has to be in the next immediate Grade Pay. One of the reasons for the expert body recommending the MACP Scheme was that there were inter-departmental disparities where several departments had varying promotional hierarchies. As a result, the working of ACP Scheme under which an employee who stagnated for 12 years, was entitled to pay in the Pay Scale of the next promotional post, led to interdepartmental anomalies. The Pay Commission therefore, recommended MACP Scheme with a view to putting an end to the problem ensuing from inter-departmental disparities. [Paras 9, 26][861-F-H; 871-G-H; 872-A]
1.2 In the ACP Scheme, there was no Grade Pay but only fixed Pay Scales and fixed increments. After the Sixth Central Pay Commission, various Pay Scales have been clubbed together and there is revised Pay Scale with corresponding Pay Bands and corresponding Grade Pay. The norms for grant of ACP were stringent and the government servant has to satisfy the norms for promotion. Whereas under the MACP Scheme, for financial upgradation, the rigour of screening is diluted. [Para 18] [868-A-B]
1.3 The words used in the MACP Scheme are “placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands”. The term “Grade Pay in the next promotional post” is conspicuously absent in the entire body of the MACP Scheme. The argument of the respondents that the benefit of MACP Scheme is referable to the promotional post, is de hors the MACP Scheme and cannot be accepted. Though ACP and MACP Schemes are intended to provide relief against stagnation, both the Schemes have different features. Pay scales under the Sixth Pay Commission and the MACP Scheme are stated to be more beneficial since it extends to the employees with time intervals with higher pay bands and various facilities which were not available under the ACP Scheme including the three financial upgradations in shorter time span. In any event, MACP Scheme has not been challenged by the respondents. The respondents cannot be permitted to cherry-pick beneficial features from the erstwhile ACP Scheme and also take advantage of the beneficial features in the MACP Scheme. [Para 27] [872-C-E]
1.4 The object behind the MACP Scheme is to provide relief against the stagnation. If the arguments of the respondents are to be accepted, they would be entitled to be paid in accordance with the grade pay offered to a promotee; but yet not assume the responsibilities of a promotee. If the employees are entitled to enjoy Grade Pay in the next promotional hierarchy, without the commensurate responsibilities as a matter of routine, it would have an adverse impact on the efficiency of administration. After accepting the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the ACP Scheme was withdrawn and the same was superseded by the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. This is not some random exercise unilaterally done by the Government, rather, it is based on the opinion of the expert body – Sixth Central Pay Commission. When the expert body like Pay Commission has comprehensively examined all the issues and representations and also took note of inter-departmental disparities owing to varying promotional hierarchies, the court should not interfere with the recommendations of the expert body. When the government has accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission and has also implemented those, any interference by the court would have a serious impact on the public exchequer. In the present batch of cases where the respondents are claiming financial upgradation in the grade pay of promotional hierarchy, no grounds are made out to show that the MACP Scheme granting financial upgradation in the next grade pay is arbitrary and unjust; warranting interference. [Paras 28,
29 and 35][872-F-H; 873-B-D; 875-G-H]
2.1 In the case of Raj Pal, the post of Photocopier, being an isolated post, the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Rajpal’s case did not go into any details in respect of the overall features of the new MACP Scheme and did not consider the recommendations of the expert body which culminated in the new Scheme. Raj Pal’s case having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refiling, Raj Pal’s case ought not to have been quoted as precedent of this Court by the High Courts. [Paras 42, 45][879B, C, F; 881-B] Union of India v. Raj Pal Decision of Supreme Court dated 15.04.2013 in SLP (C) No. CC 7467 of 2013 – distinguished.
2.2 Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, i.e. the pronouncement of the law on the point shall operate as a binding precedent on all courts within India. Law declared by the Supreme Court has to be essentially understood as a principle laid down by the court and it is this principle which has the effect of a precedent. A principle as understood from the word itself is a proposition which can only be delivered after examination of the matter on merits. It can never be in a summary manner, much less be rendered in a decision delivered on technical grounds, without entering into the merits at all. A decision, unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to be a law declared by the Supreme Court though it will bind the parties inter-se in drawing the curtain on the litigation. Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the government’s policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal’s case. Since certain anomalies on implementation of the MACP Scheme have been brought to the notice of the Joint Committee in the various meetings of the Joint Committee, Union of India and DoP&T to consider the same as they deem it appropriate and take a decision in accordance with law. [Paras 44, 51 and 53][879-G-H; 880-A-B; 883-D-E; G-H]
Union of India and Another v. P.V. Hariharan and Another (1997) 3 SCC 568 : [1997] 2 SCR 1050; State of U.P. and Others v. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association (2003) 6 SCC 250; Secretary, Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others v. Grade-1 Officers Association and Others (2014) 13 SCC 296 : [2014] 8 SCR 976; State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Arumugham (1998)
2 SCC 198 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 295; State of Haryana and Another v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 118; Union of India v. All India Service Pensioners’ Association and Another (1988) 2 SCC 580 : [1988] 2 SCR 697; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Others (1989) 4 SCC 187 : [1989]
3 SCR 488 – relied on.
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.