Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devender Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 3 July, 2025
1
Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1797/2021
Reserved on: 28.05.2025
Pronounced on: 03.07.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Devender Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Lal Sharma,
R/o Vill. & P.O. Bhikanpur, District Ghaziabad - 201206,
(aged about 63 years),
(Group 'C'),
(retired Sub-Inspector/ Delhi Police).
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New
Building). Behind Parliament Street Police Station, New
Delhi - 110001.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment) Police
Headquarters, M.S.O. Building, I.P. Estate New Delhi.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations &
Communication) Integrated Complex, FC-50, Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi-110088.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S. N. Verma)
2
Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the instant OA filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 25 06 2021 (Annexure A/1) and
(b) Direct the respondents to consider and grant IIIrd financial upgradation under MACPS from the date the applicant competed 30 years of regular service.
(c) Direct the respondents to refix the applicant's pay and retiral benefits in pursuance to above
(d) Pay accordingly alongwith arrears also
(e) Pay interest @ 15% p.a. till the amounts are paid.
(f) Award costs of the proceedings in favour of the applicant
(g) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant"
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, according to the MACP Scheme rules and instructions, the applicant is eligible for the 3rd Financial Upgradation after completing 30 years of service. However, the respondents have denied this benefit because the applicant retired due to superannuation on the exact date he completed 30 years of service. Learned counsel for the applicant further 3 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 submitted that it is undisputed that the applicant had indeed completed 30 years of service on his retirement date. Therefore, he asserted that the applicant is entitled to the 3rd MACP, emphasizing that the MACP instructions require only successful completion of 30 years of service for the 3rd financial upgradation, which is not disputed in this case.
2.1 Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as Head Constable/Asst. Wireless Officer in the Delhi Police.
2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the averments made in the counter affidavit itself wherein, a tabular form of the services rendered by the applicant has been given. The said table reads as under:
Date of Birth 05/07/1958 Date of enlistment as Canst.
03/10/1979 (Exe.) in Delhi Police Date of confirmation as Ct.
05/06/1984 (Exe.) 01/08/1988 (F/N); in the pay scale of Rs.
Appointed as HC (AWO) 975-25-1150-EB-30- 1660 1st ACP Scheme granted after 01/08/2000; in the 4 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 completing 12 Years w.e.f pay scale Of Rs. 5000-
with pay scale 150-8000/-
Date of promotion as ASI 08/12/2009 (WO)
01/09/2008; in the
2nd MACP Scheme granted pay scale of Rs. PB-2;
w.e.f. 9300-34800/- (Grade
Pay Rs. 4600/-)
3rd MACP Scheme due on 01.08.2018
31/07/2018, but on
the basis of his date of
birth shown,i.e.,
05/07/1958 m the
serv1ce record, the
applicant has been
Superannuation retired
retired on
superannuation
pension 31.07.2018
J.e. before becoming
eligible for 3rd MACP
Scheme.
2.3 Highlighting the aforesaid table, learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the applicant entered the service as a Head Constable on 01.08.1988 and 30 years of service was completed by him on 31.07.2018, and he has also superannuated on the same date.
2.4 It is also highlighted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant joined the services as a constable on 03.10.1979 and subsequently, the applicant was selected in a direct recruitment process and was recruited as Head Constable on 01.08.1988.
5Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 2.5 Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicant also drew our attention to clause 6 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 regarding MACP Schemes, which reads as under:
"6. In order to prevent undue strain on the administrative machinery, the Screening Committee shall follow a time-schedule and meet twice in a financial year
- preferably in the first week of January and first week of July of a year for advance processing of the cases maturing in that half. Accordingly, cases maturing during the first-half (April- September) of a particular financial year shall be taken up for consideration by the Screening Committee meeting in the first week of January. Similarly, the Screening Committee meeting in the first week of July of any financial year shall process the cases that would be maturing during the second-half (October-March) of the same financial year."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and argued that the applicant has been granted the benefit of ACP and MACP Scheme as per his entitlement. He stated that the date of appointment of the applicant as Head Constable is 01.08.1988 and on completion of 12 years of service on 01.08.2000, he was granted 1st ACP, and the 2nd MACP was granted to him on 01.09.2008 upon completion of 20 years of service. Learned counsel submitted that the 3rd MACP of the applicant was 6 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 due on 01.08.2018, however, a day prior to that, i.e., on 31.07.2018, the applicant superannuated and thus, the benefit of MACP Scheme cannot be extended in advance.
Adding further, learned counsel also submitted that, as on date, there is no rule for granting the benefit of MACP notionally.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has completed 30 years of service and has not been given any promotion and, therefore, he is entitled for grant of 3rd MACP.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. The key issue in this case is whether the applicant is eligible for 3rd MACP, which is granted after completing 30 years of service from the date of entry. Specifically, the question is whether the applicant's 30 years service for 3rd financial upgradation should be considered complete on his last working day/the date of his superannuation, i.e., 7 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 31.07.2018. What is the decisive date for determining eligibility?
6.2 For the factual matrix as above, we would draw reference to the Rule position for applying provisions of the MACP Scheme, which reads as under :-
There shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, respectively, or 10 years of continuous service in the same Level in Pay Matrix, whichever is earlier. OM No:
No. 22034/4/2020-Estt.(D) Dated: 23/3/2020 The MACPS envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher level in the hierarchy of the Pay Matrix as given in PART A of the Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. Thus, the level at the time of financial upgradation under the MACPS can, in certain cases where regular promotion is not between two successive Pay Levels, be lower than what is available at the time of regular promotion. In such cases, the higher level attached to the next promotion 8 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 post in the hierarchy of the concerned cadre/organization will be given only at the time of regular promotion. ( REF: OM No: No. 22034/4/2020- Estt.(D) Dated: 23/3/2020) 'Regular Service' for the purpose of the MACPS hall commences from the date of joining of a post in a direct entry grade on a regular basis, either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-employment basis. Service rendered on a casual, adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning. However, past continuous regular service in same/another Central Government Department in a post carrying the same Pay Level in the Pay Matrix prior to regular appointment in a new Department, without a break, shall also be counted towards qualifying regular service for the purpose of MACPS only (and not for the regular promotions). However, benefits under the MACPS in such cases shall not be considered till satisfactory completion of the probation period in the 9 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 new post. (Ref: OM No: No. 35034/3/2008- Estt.(D)(Vol.II) Dated: 4/10/2012) 6.3. In Jai Singh Saharan And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors decided on 19 December 2024 arising out of W P (C) No.6714/23, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:
"32. The benefit under the MACP, in terms of the Scheme notified vide Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, is extended on the completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service, respectively. Where officials had completed the above stated period between the ages of 57 years and 60 years, however, they superannuated at the age of 57 years in accordance with the then prevailing provisions, which have since been declared discriminatory by this Court in its Judgment in Dev Sharma (supra), and were consequently not allowed to complete 10/20/30 years of service, then in terms of the above referred judgments and as a consequential relief, such officials would be deemed to have continued in service, thereby entitling them to the grant of the benefit under the MACP Scheme by presuming that the officials completed such service of 10/20/30 years due to the extension of the age of their superannuation to the age of 60 years. Denying such benefit to the petitioners and similarly situated officials would be to give only a partial relief in the implementation of the above referred judgments, by creating an artificial distinction, that is, while the benefit of grant of increments is extended to such officials, however, at the same time, the benefit of the MACP Scheme is denied. The same cannot be sustained.
33. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and direct the respondents to place the case of the petitioners before a Screening Committee appointed for evaluating the claim of the officials for the MACP, which would consider the case of the petitioners by treating them as having remained in 'regular service' until they attained the age of 60 years, and accordingly process their claims 10 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 for the grant of the benefit of the 3rd financial upgradation in accordance with the MACP Scheme.
34. The said exercise must be completed within a period of three months from today, and in case the petitioners are found entitled to the grant of the benefit of the 3rd MACP, the relief in that regard shall be released to the petitioners and their pension shall be accordingly modified with retrospective effect. We clarify that the grant of the 3rd MACP will only be notional and for the purposes of calculating the pension of the petitioners, and that the petitioners will not be entitled to extra pay because of the grant of MACP."
6.4 In Ex Sgt K.C Dutta Vs UOI & Ors. (OA No.1029 of 2017) decided on 30.11.2023 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, it was held as under :-
"7. Primarily, the Government has introduced the MACP Scheme as a welfare scheme because it provides for three financial upgradations at 8, 16 and 24 years of continuous service. This Scheme provides hope for those employees who, for various reasons, are unable to get promoted. In the case at hand, the objection of the respondents is that on the due date when the applicant would have been considered as eligible for grant of financial upgradation as per MACР Scheme, he was not on the strength of the organisation i.e. Air Force and, therefore, the applicant cannot seek the benefit of MACP Scheme as sought for.
8. We find that the issue in question has already been considered in detail and settled by the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of the AFT, Regional Bench at Chandigarh in the case of Banarasi Dass Vs. Union of India & Ors. [O.A. No. 1641 of 2013] passed on 19.05.2015, wherein, after taking note of the Gazette of India and Army Order on the subject as well as various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the principle of interpretation of the statute, the Larger Bench held as under :
11Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 "26. In the case at hand, a copy of the PPO with respect to the petitioner filed along with the petition would also show that he is getting pension with effect from 1st October, 2008, meaning thereby the petitioner stood retired on the previous date i.e. 30th September, 2008 on completion of 24 years of service. The fact that his name was struck from the roll on the next day is of no consequence.
27. Having regard what has been said above, we are of the view that a Havildar who retires just after completion of his tenure of 24 years on the last date of month is also entitled to МАСР. The question posed in para 2 of the judgment is, thus, answered in affirmative by holding that on completion of 24 years of service the 3rd ACP would be payable automatically."
9. Furthermore, a Civil Appeal filed vide Diary No. 18345/2017 by the Union of India and other appellants against the said order in Ex Hav Banarasi Dass (supra) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
10. Furthermore, in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others [W.P. No. 15732 of 2017] decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide its verdict dated 15.09.2017, the petitioner, on superannuation, retired on 30.06.2013 and he was denied the last increment. As per the 6th CPC, the date of annual increment was fixed by the Central Govt. as 1st July of the year for all the employees and, therefore, since the petitioner was no longer in service on 01.07.2013, he could not be granted the same. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal but his matter was dismissed, which was challenged by the petitioner in the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 15732 of 2017. The Hon'ble Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the employee had completed one full year of service, which entitles him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.
Against this judgment of the Madras High Court, a Special Leave Petition (Dy. No.22282/2018) was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2018.
12Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021
11. It is essential to observe that vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.Р. Mundinamani & Ors., the Hon ble Supreme Court has upheld the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in P. Ayyamperumal (supra), which view has thus attained finality. Paras 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7 and 7 of the said verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 read as under :
"6.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that the annual increment is in the form of incentive and to encourage an employee to perform well and therefore, once he is not in service, there is no question of grant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In a given case, it may happen that the employee earns the increment three days before his date of superannuation and therefore, even according to the Regulation 40(1) increment is accrued on the next day in that case also such an employee would not have one year service thereafter. It is to be noted that increment is earned on one year past service rendered in a time scale. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is not to be accepted.
6.5.Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for 13 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. In the case of Gopal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under:-
(para 20) "Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment. A plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maxiтит. The increment in case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following 14 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment accrues from the day following which it is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant. It is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earns increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period i.e. a year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the day following which it is earned." (para 23) "Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. In the statutory scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the services rendered over a year by the government servant subject to his good behaviour. The pay of a central government servant rises, by periodical increments, from a minimum to the mаximиm in the prescribed scale. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with goop conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day."
(para 24) "In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been 15 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable."
"In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance."
6.6. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra) while dealing with the same issue has observed and held in paragraph 24 as under:-
"24. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out from the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year's service with good conduct and 16 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 no other purpose can be culled out for it. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable. In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance."
6.7. Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or 17 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 interpreted would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. In the present case the word "accrue" should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh 18 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve. the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant- General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
6.5. Thus, the principle applicable for the grant of a notional annual increment earned by an employee for rendering service with good conduct in a preceding year/specified period, even though he retired the next day, has to be equally applicable to the grant of the MACP benefit on completion of 10, 20, 30 years of service, if otherwise available. If the 30 completed years for the third MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme) fall 19 Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 on the last day of an employee's superannuation, they are still eligible for the financial upgradation. The MACP is a financial benefit and not a promotion, so it is not contingent on the employee being in service beyond the date of eligibility. The benefit should be granted on the date of completion of 30 years of service, even if that date coincides with the last day of service due to superannuation.
6.6. We therefore, on the analogy of the decision rendered in the afore-quoted case of principle for grant of notional increments hold that the applicant ought to be extended the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we quash and set aside the impugned office order dated 25.06.2021 and allow the O.A. with the following directions:
7.2. The applicant shall be entitled to 3rd financial upgradation on notional basis if, otherwise, he fulfills the other eligibility parameters under the MACP Scheme. The applicant shall also be entitled to re-fixation of the pension;20
Item No.91 (C-5) O.A. No. 1797/2021 however, the enhanced pension for the period prior to 25.06.2021 will not be paid. The arrears after 25.06.2021 shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7.3 Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/