Central government service matters

T V Nagender (Querist) 13 December 2017 This query is : Resolved
Supreme court has in judgement in WP(C) No.23465 of 2013(G) 2 LPA 405 of 2016 3 O.A. No. 541 of 2012 dt. 8.12.17 given the judgement that MACP has to be implemented wef 1.1.2006 and not from 1.9.2006 as per the 6th Pay commission in a case filed by an army personnel.
I also served in central government department (civil) and the 6thPC was implemented. My MACP was also given effect from 1.9.2006. Kindly advice whether I can draw the inference of supreme court order and claim MACP wef 1.1.2006. Now I retired from service on 30.06.2012.
Nagender
trichyn@gmail.com
Thanks

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 14 December 2017
Please reproduce the judgment for examination and analysis for further guidance.

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 3744 OF 2016
Union of India and Ors. .� Appellant(s)
Vs.
Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. �.Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 5183 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 5184 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 6249 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 7888 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 18265 OF 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 31768 OF 2016
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 38019 OF 2016
CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 42810 OF 2016

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
3
2. This bunch of appeals is being disposed of by a common
judgment since similar questions of law are involved.
3. The 6th Central Pay Commission was set up by the
Government of India to make recommendations in matters
relating to emoluments, allowances and conditions of service
amongst other things. The Pay Commission also made
recommendation with regard to armed forces personnel. On
30th August, 2008, the Central Government resolved by a
resolution of that date to accept the recommendation of the 6th
Central Pay Commission (�CPC� for short) with regard to the
Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) subject to certain
modifications. Clause (i) of the Resolution reads as follows :-
�(i) Implementation of the revised pay structure of
pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension, with
effect from 01.01.2006 and revised rates of allowances
(except Dearness Allowance/relief) with effect from
01.09.2008;�
Clause 9 of the Resolution reads as follows :-
�(ix) Grant of 3 ACP up-gradation after 8, 16 and 24
years of service to PBORs;�

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
5
claim that the benefit of the Modified Assured Career
Progression (�MACP� for short) was denied to them on the
ground that the MACP was made applicable only with effect
from 01.09.2008. The respondents approached the AFT
praying that they are entitled to the benefit of MACP w.e.f.
01.01.2006, i.e., the date from which the recommendation of
the 6th CPC with regard to pay and benefits were made
applicable. The stand of the Union of India was that the
MACP was applicable only w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and, therefore,
the respondents who had retired prior to the said date were
not entitled to the benefit of the MACP. The AFT vide the
impugned order dated 21.05.2014 held that the benefit of ACP
granted to an employee is part of the pay structure which not
only affects his pay but also his pension and, therefore, held
that the ACP is not an allowance but a part of pay and,
therefore, in terms of Clause (i) of the Government Resolution
the MACP was payable w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
6
6. The question that arises for decision is whether the
benefit of MACP is applicable from 01.01.2006 or from
01.09.2008.
7. The answer to this question will lie in the interpretation
given to the Government Resolution, relevant portion of which
has been quoted hereinabove. A bare perusal of Clause(i) of
the Resolution clearly indicates that the Central Government
decided to implement the revised pay structure of pay bands
and grade pay, as well as pension with effect from 01.01.2006.
The second part of the Clause lays down that all allowances
except the Dearness Allowance/relief will be effective from
01.09.2008. The AFT held, and in our opinion rightly so, that
the benefit of MACP is part of the pay structure and will affect
the grade pay of the employees and, therefore, it cannot be
said that it is a part of allowances. The benefit of MACP if
given to the respondents would affect their pension also.
8. We may also point out that along with this Resolution
there is Annexure-I. Part-A of Annexure-I deals with the pay

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
7
structure, grade pay, pay bands etc., and Item 10 reads as
follows :-
10 Assured Career Progression Scheme for
PBORs.
The Commission recommends that the
time bound promotion scheme in case of
PBORs shall allow two financial
upgradations on completion of 10 and 20
years of service as at present. The
financial upgradations under the scheme
shall allow benefit of pay fixation equal
to one increment along with the higher
grade pay. As regards the other
suggestions relating to residency period
for promotion of PBORs Ministry of
Defence may set up an Inter-Services
Committee to consider the matter after
the revised scheme of running bands is
implemented (Para 2.3.34)
Three ACP
upgradation after
8, 16 and 24 years
of service has been
approved. The
upgradation will
take place only in
the hierarchy of
Grade Pays, which
need not
necessarily be the
hierarchy in that
particular cadre.
Part-B of Annexure-I deals with allowances, concessions &
benefits and Conditions of Service of Defence Forces
Personnel. It is apparent that the Government itself by placing
MACP in Part-A of Annexure-I was considering it to be the part
of the pay structure.
9. The MACP Scheme was initially notified vide Special
Army Instructions dated 11.10.2008. The Scheme was called
the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for Personnel
Below Officer Rank in the Indian Army. After the Resolution

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
8
was passed by the Central Government on 30.08.2008 Special
Army Instructions were issued on 11.10.2008 dealing with
revision of pay structure. As far as ACP is concerned Para 15
of the said letter reads as follows:-
�15. Assured Career Progression. In pursuance with
the Government Resolution of Assured Career
Progression (ACP), a directly recruited PBOR as a
Sepoy, Havildar or JCO will be entitled to minimum
three financial upgradations after 8, 16 and 24 years
of service. At the time of each financial upgradation
under ACP, the PBOR would get an additional
increment and next higher grade pay in hierarchy.
xx xx xx�
Thereafter, another letter was issued by the Adjutant General
Branch on 03.08.2009. Relevant portion of which reads as
follows:-
��.The new ACP (3 ACP at 8, 16 and 24 years of
service) should be applicable w.e.f. 1 Jan 2006, and
the old provns (operative w.e.f. the Vth Pay
Commission) would be applicable till 31 Dec. 05.
Regular service for the purpose of ACP shall commence
from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade.
xx xx xx�

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
9
Finally, on 30.05.2011 another letter was issued by the
Ministry of Defence, relevant portion of which reads as
follows:-
�5. The Scheme would be operational w.e.f. 1st Sep.
2008. In other words, financial up-gradations as per
the provisions of the, earlier ACP scheme (of August
2003) would be granted till 31.08.2008.�
Therefore, even as per the understanding of the Army
and other authorities up till the issuance of the letter dated
30.05.2011 the benefit of MACP was available from
01.01.2006.
10. As already held by us above, there can be no dispute that
grant of ACP is part of the pay structure. It affects the pay of
the employee and he gets a higher grade pay even though it
may be in the same pay band. It has been strenuously urged
by Col. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the UOI that
the Government took the decision to make the Scheme
applicable from 01.09.2008 because many employees would
have lost out in case the MACP was made applicable from
01.01.2006 and they would have had to refund the excess

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
10
amount, if any, paid to them. His argument is that under the
old Scheme if somebody got the benefit of the ACP he was put
in the higher scale of pay. After merger of pay scales into pay
bands an employee is only entitled to higher grade pay which
may be lower than the next pay band. Therefore, there may be
many employees who may suffer.
11. We are only concerned with the interpretation of the
Resolution of the Government which clearly states that the
recommendations of 6th CPC as modified and accepted by the
Central Government in so far as they relate to pay structure,
pay scales, grade pay etc. will apply from 01.01.2006. There
may be some gainers and some losers but the intention of the
Government was clear that this Scheme which is part of the
pay structure would apply from 01.01.2006. We may also
point out that the Resolution dated 30.08.2008 whereby the
recommendation of the Pay Commission has been accepted
with modifications and recommendations with regard to pay
structure, pay scales, grade pay etc. have been made
applicable from 01.01.2006. This is a decision of the Cabinet.

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
12
13. In this view of the matter we find no merit in the appeals,
which are accordingly disposed of. All pending applications
are also disposed of.
��..J.
(Madan B. Lokur)
��J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
December 08, 2017

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
11
This decision could not have been modified by issuing
executive instruction. The letter dated 30.05.2011 flies in the
face of the Cabinet decision reflected in the Resolution dated
30.08.2008. Thus, administrative instruction dated
30.05.2011 is totally ultra vires the Resolution of the
Government.
12. Col. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the UOI
relied upon the following three judgments viz. P.K.
Gopinathan Nair & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
1 ,
passed by the High Court of Kerala on 22.03.2017, Delhi
Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Shashi Malik &
Ors.
2, passed by the High Court of Delhi on 01.09.2016, K.K.
Anandan & Ors. v. The Principal Accountant General
Kerala (Audit) & Ors3 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Kerala on 08.02.2013. In our
view, none of these judgments is applicable because the issue
whether the MACP is part of the pay structure or allowances
were not considered in any of these cases.

1 WP(C) No.23465 of 2013(G)
2 LPA 405 of 2016
3 O.A. No. 541 of 2012

T V Nagender (Querist) 15 December 2017
12
13. In this view of the matter we find no merit in the appeals,
which are accordingly disposed of. All pending applications
are also disposed of.
��..J.
(Madan B. Lokur)
��J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
December 08, 2017

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 23 June 2018
Querist seems to have cited some Supreme court Judgements.

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 23 June 2018
Querist cited Supreme court Judgment.

Guest (Expert) 23 June 2018
Ms. Usha Kapoor,
So, what is your opinion on the query with reference to the SC judgment? Mere making a vague repeated statement, "querist cited Supreme Court Judgment" is not a solution to the query

P. Venu (Expert) 08 November 2018
The decision of the Supreme Court has been in the context of the OAs decided by the Armed Forces Tribunals. Orders have already been issued implementing the decision in respect of Armed Forces Personnel.

Given the ratio held by the Apex Court, the decision should equally be applicable Civilian Central Government employees as well. However, no orders appears to have been issued by the DoPT. As such. you may represent or file a statutory Appeal under CCS(CCA) Rules and, if required, pursue judicial review before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Central government service matters

Similar Resolved Queries :