Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It was not disputed before the Tribunal that the date of appointment of the petitioner was on 21.03.1985. Admittedly, he had completed 12 years from 21.03.1985 to 21.03.1997. Since the ACP Scheme itself was implemented only from 09.08.2009, the original applicant was granted financial up-gradation under first ACP in the year 1999.

6. The applicant was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 18.09.2008. Even as per the original applicant, he completed 24 years of service from 21.03.1985 to 20.03.2009. However, even before completion of 24 years of service from the date of appointment, the ACP Scheme was superseded and MACP Scheme was implemented. The MACP Scheme was retrospectively implemented with effect from 01.09.2008. Therefore, the case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.5743 & 9490 of 2020 of the petitioner was considered for grant of second MACP financial up- gradation under the new scheme, which was implemented with effect from 01.09.2008.

7. With reference to the eligibility of the petitioner for financial up- gradation of second ACP the scheme itself was superseded and new MACP Scheme came into force with effect from 01.09.2008. As on 01.09.2008, the original applicant has not completed 24 years of service from the date of appointment. He had completed 24 years qualified services from his date of appointment only on 20th March 2009. Since the MACP scheme was implemented with effect from 01.09.2008, admittedly the petitioner has received the financial up-gradation under the second MACP Scheme. The issue relating to the implementation of MACP Scheme and withdrawal of ACP was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority vs. Narender Kumar and Others1, and by referring the case of Union of India vs. M.V.Mohanan Nair2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issues and the relevant paragraph in the case of M.V.Mohan Nair cited supra reads as under:

1. (2022) 11 SCC 641
2. (2020) 5 SCC 421 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.5743 & 9490 of 2020 “26. ...............................

“32. The change in policy brought about by supersession of ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is after consideration of all the disparities and the representations of the employees. The Sixth Central Pay Commission is an expert body which has comprehensively examined all the issues and the representations as also the issue of stagnation and at the same time to promote efficiency in the functioning of the departments. MACP Scheme has been introduced on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission which has been accepted by the Government of India. 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 1-9- 2008. This is not some random exercise which is unilaterally done by the Government, rather, it is based on the opinion of the expert body—Sixth Central Pay Commission which has examined all the issues, various representations and disparities. Before making the recommendation for the pay scale/revised pay scale, the Pay Commission takes into consideration the existing pay structure, the representations of the government servants and various other factors after which the recommendations are made. When the expert body like the Pay Commission has comprehensively examined all https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.5743 & 9490 of 2020 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.”

9. We found that the original applicant has not completed 24 years of service as on 01.09.2008, the date on which the MACP Scheme was implemented. Therefore, he was rightly granted the financial up-gradation II under the new MACP Scheme.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.5743 & 9490 of 2020

10. That being the factum, we are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the Tribunal are not in consonance with the withdrawal of the ACP Scheme and implementation of MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. Thus, the order impugned dated 12th October, 2018 in O.A.No.1428 of 2016 is set aside.