Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioners herein are serving as a Superintendent / Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. They since apprehended the withdrawal of the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPs hereinafter) to the grade of Rs. 6600/- along with recovery process being initiated by the authority, they have chosen to move the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3.1. It is the contention on the part of the petitioners that on completion of 30 years of service, they are entitled to be given the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme by placing them in the pay band-III with grade pay of Rs. 6600/-. The present petitioners completed 30 years of service in the period between 01.01.2012 to 31.08.2014 and they were all granted the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme and their pay came to be re-fixed.

6.1. After examining the DOPT the Madras High Court opined that Shri R. Chandrasekaran got only one promotion and 2nd ACP in grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in his service career prior to implementation of MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and he is entitled to the grant of 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- under MACP scheme on completion of 30 years of service. This was communicated by CBEC vide letter dated 26.05.2015 to the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Chennai Zone for filing compliance report before the Madras High Court.

9. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Kariel for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Amin for Union of India. We have also noticed the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Union of India vs. All India CGHS Employees Association in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8515 of 2014 delivered on 09.11.2016 and the same is followed by the Tribunal.

9.1. The Delhi High Court after detailed discussion, has held that the letter/communication/clarification dated 11.11.2011 reflects the correct interpretation of the MACP scheme and the earlier order/communication dated 16.07.2010 according to the High Court had wrongly interpreted the MACP scheme. The challenge against this decision was also pending.

10. During the course of hearing of these petitions, the decision of the Apex Court is rendered in the pending case of Union of India vs. M.V.Mohanan Nair in Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020 and allied matters on 05.03.2020, where the Apex Court has in no unclear terms held that Raj Pal's case having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the petition ought not to have been quoted as a precedent by the High Courts. The Apex Court also further held that the ACP scheme, superseded by MACP scheme, is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented and there is nothing to show that the scheme is arbitrary or unjust, warranting interference. 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, therefore, the Apex Court did not sustain the judgment and orders of the High Court in M.V.Mohanan's case and quashed and set aside the same. 10.1. While so holding, the Apex Court also noticed at para 47, 48 and 49 certain anomalies on implementation of the MACP scheme which have been brought to the notice of the Joint Committee in the various meetings of Joint Committee, Union of India and DOP&T for considering the same as they deem it appropriate and take decision in accordance with the law.