Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: MACP Scheme in Union Of India And Ors vs Fairaz Hussain on 8 February, 2022Matching Fragments
"9. In view of the judgment of this Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Respondents and other similarly situated employees are entitled for financial upgradation under MACPS only to the next grade pay and not to the grade pay of next promotional post. It is clear from the resolution dated 30.08.2008 that the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission was accepted by the Government and was made effective from 01.01.2006 in respect of civilian employees with regard to revised scales of pay and dearness allowances. In so far as the revised allowances other than dearness allowance, recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission were given effect from 01.09.2008. The judgment in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) clinches the issue. Benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Schemes are incentives and are not part of pay. The resolution dated 29.08.2008 is made effective from 01.09.2008 for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA which includes financial upgradation under ACP & MACP Schemes. Therefore, the Respondents and other similarly situated officers are not entitled to seek implementation of the benefits of MACPS w.e.f. 01.01.2006 according to the resolution dated 29.08.2008. Moreover, the implementation of MACPS by granting financial upgradation only to the next grade pay in the pay band and not granting pay of the next promotional post w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would be detrimental to a large number of employees, particularly those who have retired. We find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that uniform implementation of MACPS for civilian employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would result in large scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess."
And at paragraph No.8 of Sudheesh Kumar's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"8. By the impugned judgment and order and while granting grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 virtually, the High Court has modified the MACP Scheme which has been framed by the Government on the recommendations of the expert body like the pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme. As observed and held by this Court in the case of M.V.Mohanan Nair (supra) the ACP which is now suspended by MACP Scheme is a matter of Government policy and interfering with the recommendations of the expert body like the pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme would have serious impact on the public exchequer. It is further observed that the recommendations of the pay commission for the MACP Scheme have been accepted by the Government and implemented. It is further observed that therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Government policies in the form of MACP Scheme which was after accepting the Sixth Central Pay Commission. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and the binding decision of this Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) with which we also agree, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
However, we observe that the view which we are taking is on the premise that neither the MACP Scheme nor Clause 8.1 is under challenge and as per the law laid down by this Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), an employee is entitled to the higher grade pay as provided under MACP Scheme, more particularly, as per Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Therefore, so long as Clause 8.1 and the grade pay mentioned as per Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 stands, the employee shall be entitled to the grade pay accordingly. Therefore, if any of the employees is aggrieved by Clause 8.1 and if in his opinion, there is any anomaly the same has to be challenged by the aggrieved employee, which can be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. However, as the same is not under challenge, we have to go by the MACP Scheme as it is."
Where as the Circular dated 06.09.2021 issued by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Government of India produced by the learned counsel for the respondent at para 2 reads as under:
"2. The matter has been examined and it is clarified that if a Central Govt. employee who is promoted to either Postman/Mail Guard or Postal/Sorting Assistant or Inspector Posts cadre (i.e. to the post which carry higher Grade Pay / pay Level in Pay Matrix than what is available under MACPS and have the element of direct recruitment) through Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE) immediate after availing the benefits of 1st financial upgradation under MACP Scheme (not TBOP/BCR Scheme), the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme (in the next Grade Pay w.r.t. Grade Pay / pay Level held by Government servant) shall be admissible to him/her on completion of 20 years service from direct entry grade in terms of para-28(B) of OM dated 19.05.2009 & para- 27(B) of OM dated 22.10.2009, if otherwise, admissible and the employee fulfils the other eligibility conditions.