Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(m) Proposals to vary or reverse a decision previously taken by the Cabinet."

6. A significant limb of the Petitioners‟ case is that the ACP scheme being a "precursor" to the Modified Assured Career Progression („MACP‟) scheme, the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (2018) 11 SCC 99 to decide that the MACP scheme would be applicable from 1st January, 2006 and not from 1st September, 2008, would also extend to their plea that the ACP scheme must be held to be effective from 1st January, 1996 as opposed to 9th August, 1999. The Petitioners state they are not differently situated from Personnel Below Officer Rank („PBOR‟), who were the affected Respondents in Balbir Singh Turn (supra). The Petitioners further submit that they are similarly placed as the BSF personnel in W.P.(C) 5341/2018 (Constable Vijender Pal v. Union of India) where this Court following Balbir Singh Turn (supra), directed the Respondents to grant the benefits under the MACP scheme from 1st January, 2006.

7. The Petitioners further rely on the Supreme Court‟s judgment in Balbir Singh Turn (supra) to contend that since the aforesaid judgment held, in the context of the MACP Scheme, which is the successor of the ACP Scheme, that the benefit under the MACP Scheme constituted a "part of the pay structure" and not "allowances", paragraph 4 of the GoI resolution dated 30th September, 1997 would squarely apply to their case.

14. The Court is of the view that both questions must be answered in the affirmative. It is not the case of the Respondents in their counter affidavit that the MACP scheme did not succeed the ACP scheme. Neither have the Respondents been able to demonstrate that the mere fact that the MACP scheme is an upgradation on the ACP scheme sets the former apart from the latter as far as the essential nature of the schemes is concerned, which as per the 6th CPC itself is to "provide an assured progression for in-situ promotion on personal basis to all the employees who have rendered a specified period of service". If anything, the fact that the Respondents in their counter affidavit have cited the rationale that had been put forth earlier to deny the benefits under the MACP scheme from an earlier date, which stand has been rejected in Balbir Singh Turn, as being relevant to determining the date from which the ACP scheme should be held to be applicable, serves to bolster the Petitioner‟s case. There can, therefore, be no manner of doubt that the observation of the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh Turn (supra) that the benefits under the MACP scheme are part of an employee‟s pay structure must be viewed as covering the ACP scheme as well.

5. Admittedly, the Respondents have accepted the above decision in Digambar Singh v. Union of India (supra) and of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (supra). However, for some reasons the benefit was not extended across the board to all members of the CAPFs.

6. Constable Vijender Pal filed W.P.(C) 5341 of 2018 seeking the benefit of the MACP scheme with effect from 1st January, 2006. This Court disposed of the said petition on 6th September, 2018 directing the Respondents to comply with the decision in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (supra) and pay the requisite amount towards the MACP benefit to the Petitioner."