Grant of modified assured career progressive scheme - reg.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 08 January 2025
This query is : Resolved
Respected Learned Experts, I am a Central Government Servant governed by CCS Rules. I am entitled for MACP benefits in 2008 itself. I had faced two criminal cases in the year 2009 and 2010 (cognizance taken by the court) and one departmental enquiry in 2011. In 2009 case, I was acquitted and 2010 case, I was convicted for which an appeal is lying before the High Court. Before conviction in 2010 case, I was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirment in the departmental enquiry in the year 2017. My MACP benefits refused by the department in August 2024 citing the above cases. All these cases were occured subsequent to my date of entitlement of MACP. Hence, I had filed an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and appearing as Party In-person. The tribunal is questioning the delay. I had filed OA within two months of the receipt of the department order. However, the Tribunal is observing the the cause of action araised in 2008 itself, it is too late to admit the OA. Becuse of the refusal of MACP, my salary and pension receiving right now is affected and therefore it has a recurring nature of injustice. The Tribunal adjourned the case with direction to file the reasons for the delay from 2008 onwards. Kindly guide me whether the cause of action arise from the due date of elgibility of MACP or from the date of the order passed by the department? Please also clarify whether I have any immunity on the basis of the recurring loss in mopnthly pension which I presume has resulted in creating fresh cause of action every month?
As I am appearing as Party In person, I request the Hon'ble Forum kindly to guide in the matter and judgment if any in the matter may also be shared please.
Thanks in anticipation.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 09 January 2025
The MACP Scheme was introduced on 01.09.2008. As of 01.09.2008, did you complete 10 years of service without promotion? When did the criminal case file either before or after the orders were received under MACP?
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 10 January 2025
You are required to move MA explaining the circumstances for condonation of delay stating all above facts.
Whether there is any impact of conviction for consideration of MACP, you are required to research and convience the department as well as Tribunal
It is better to consult and engage a local prudent lawyer for proper analyses of facts, professional advise and necessary proceeding to protect your interest.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 10 January 2025
Respected Learned Expert Shri KVK Satyanrayana sir, I had completed 10 years of service without any promotion in October 2007 itself. But as on 01.09.2008, I was under suspension and my suspension was revocked in April 2009. Although, I had been acquitted in the criminal case in the year 2011, my suspension period was not regularied by the Competent Authority statong that I was facing another criminal case filed in the year 2010 and departmental proceedings pending whihc was initiated in 2011. The rejection of MACP by the Authority was passed only in the year 2024 that too after the intrevention of the Tribunal which has directed the Authoirty to dispose my representation for claim of MACP. Please guide me. Respected Learned Expert Shri
Dr. J. Vashista, much obliged by your response and once again thank you very much for sparing your valuable time for reply the query.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 10 January 2025
Since your suspension period is not regularized as of the date of MACP, you are not eligible for MACP, in my view.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 11 January 2025
Suspension of an employee cannot continue for such a long time as stated by you, find out some local prudent lawyer practicing service matter to get the suspension revoked and regularised, which shall help to getting MACP as well.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 12 January 2025
The plea of deptt is not tenable. Prima-facie you raised issue late. Was any representation pending in between.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 12 January 2025
Much obliged by the response of the Learned Experts. Thank you very much to one and all once again.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 13 January 2025
a claim for Assured Career Progression (MACP) can be denied if there is a significant delay in filing. The doctrine of delay and laches can bar claims if there is an inordinate delay in filing. For example, in the case of Maya Verma VS Union Of India - Rajasthan (2022), a petition for service benefits under the MACP scheme was dismissed due to a significant delay of over 30 years.
The limitation period for MACP claims can be influenced by factors such as the communication of adverse entries and the nature of the claim (recurring cause of action). Delay and laches can bar claims if not filed within a reasonable time frame.
Un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be used against employees in MACP cases.
Courts are inclined to re-examine claims that were dismissed on limitation grounds if the dismissal was not justified.
Union of India VS Neelu Kumari, D/o-Late Pachu Sao - Jharkhand (2023)
Maya Verma VS Union Of India - Rajasthan (2022)
Union of India VS Harish Chandra Singh - Rajasthan (2013)
Md. Nasimuddin, Son of Md. Nisaruddin VS State of Bihar - Patna (2017)
NAFE SINGH VS INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY - Delhi (2017)]
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 14 January 2025
The concept of limitation may be inapplicable in the instant case since it is recurring every passing moment / day / month / year as it affects pay and allowances of concerned employee, please correct me if I am wrong.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 14 January 2025
Much obliged by the response of Learned Expert Shri T. Kalaiselvan. No adverse entries were communicated to me till my retirement. Furhter, the High Court of Madras has passed an order last week to regularise the period of suspension. Shri T. Kalaiselvan sir, I shall go thropugh the case referred by you and come back please. Hence my entitlement of MACP from 01.09.2008 may arise only after the order of High Court (I presume, please confirm my interpretation). Learned Expert Shri Dr. J.C. Vashista, I am also of the same opinion that the pay and pension are recurring events and therefore fresh cause of action arise every month. I was informed by one of my colleague that there is a Supreme Court judgment for the pay pension limitation which arise evey month. I hope that any Learned Expert having come across such a judgment may please be shared to me.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 15 January 2025
You are welcome for your appreciations and understanding.
You may look for the supreme court judgment also to be precise about initiating your next course of legal action.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 16 January 2025
You may refer to end number of judgments which are available on every legal site. some of them I have taken few judgments from Indian Kanoon are:
Sh. Hari Bhajan vs Union Of India & Ors. Through on 25 March, 2014
wrong fixation of pay is continuing wrong giving rise to recurring cause of action every month on the occasion of payment of salary. As such ... scale asked for, which is a one time action and not a recurring cause. Therefore, in our opinion, this case would not be covered
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Nirmata Kureel vs Govt. Of Nctd on 2 September, 2015
delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order ... plea regarding re- designation of the post may be recurring cause of action, we dispose of the Original Application with direction to the respondents
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Jagdish Lal Jokhani vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 10 May, 2010
pension is involved, the Applicant has a recurring cause of action and the Application is not barred by limitation. 3. When the mater came
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Vijay Laxmi vs M/O Statistics on 25 October, 2016
record and judgments cited by either side. 13. The original cause of action clearly arose when the respondents issued order dated 3.04.2003. The applicant slept ... grievance relates to pay and allowances, which is a recurring cause of action. 14. In view of the judgments cited by the respondents, clearly there
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Sh. Ranjeet Singh vs The Chairman on 10 January, 2012
submit that the loss in pay of Government servant is recurring cause of action, but in the circumstances of the present case
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Shri Navendra Kumar vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited on 1 November, 2011
scale to the applicants is not an independent event but recurring cause of action, as the applicants have been denied the benefits. The law laid
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Sugan Yadav vs M/O Railways on 15 January, 2016
that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed ... aforesaid settled position of law and since the cause of action is continuous and recurring, the contention of the respondents, with regard to limitation
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Sh. Bhagat Singh (Age 50 Years) vs Union Of India Through on 10 March, 2015
this Tribunal, in our opinion, fixation of pay is a recurring cause of action as each time a person draws less pay fresh cause
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Smt Vidya Wati vs Union Of India on 18 May, 2016
since this was a case of pension it was a recurring cause of action and hence limitation did not apply in such cases in terms
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Raj Pal Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 2 August, 2016
scale, the action arises every month and being a recurring cause of action, in view of the decision of the Apex Court
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vasudevan
(Querist) 19 January 2025
My heartful thanks to Learned Experts S/Shri T. Kalaiselvan and Dr. J.C. Vashista for sparing your time and knowledge. I shall try to convice the Tribunal citing the pendency of judicial proceedings for the treatment of suspension period which has been concluded only in Jan.2025. I once again thanks to one and all in this Expert Forum for their response and guidance.
P. Venu
(Expert) 07 February 2025
The MACP Scheme was notified on 19.05.2009 with retrospective effect from 1.9.2008. Para 6 of the O.M. provides that the Screening Committee shall follow a time schedule and meet twice in a financial year, preferably in the first week of January and 1st week of July of a year for advance processing of the cases maturing in that half.
It was also provided in Para 7 that, in order to make the MACP Scheme operational, the Cadre Controlling Authority shall constitute the 1st Screening Committee within a month from the date of issue of the said instruction to consider the cases maturing up to 30.06.2009 for grant of benefits under the MACP Scheme.
Thus, the Screening Committee for considering grant of up-gradation under the MACP Scheme, in the instant case, which was due w.e.f. 01.09.2008 should have been convened before 19th June, 2009. When was the Screening Committee convened?
Furthermore, in accordance with the settled procedure, Sealed Cover procedure would have been adopted in view of the then pending criminal proceedings and resultant suspension from service. Now that you have been acquitted, it has been imperative upon the authorities to open the seal cover and act upon the recommendations of the Screening Committee. It appears that the competent Authority has failed to abide by the procedure.
In the given circumstances, the relief that could be sought in judicial review is for the direction to open the Sealed Cover and action there upon.
In my considered view, the best option is to withdraw the present OA and file a fresh one with the relief as suggested. Before filing the fresh OA, it is advisable that you make a representation [rather an Appeal under Rule 23 of the CCS(CCA) Rules] to the Competent Authority.
As rightly asserted by Learned Expert Dr. Vashista, the cause of action in the instant case is of recurring nature, hence no limitation applies. This aspect could be emphasized in the Representation/Appeal, as suggested.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 22 February 2025
Rules 23 (iv) of CCS(CC&A) Rules read with Rule 29 and 29A, allows you to file revision /review petition before the department against any decision which effects you pension and this actions not time barred.
You are perhaps EPFO employee then the rules in your case will be 19(iv) and Rule 25 of EPFO Staff (CC&A) Rules
Vasudevan
(Querist) 22 February 2025
With due respect to Learned Expert Shri Sudhir Kumar, I tender my heartful of thanks for your special efforts taken in the matter. Once again thank you very much sir.
