The matter arose from a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had granted the deceased employee three financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. The employee had joined the North Eastern Police Academy as a Hindi Instructor on 12 November 1984. On 26 May 1998 the Ministry of Home Affairs created a new post of Hindi Officer and simultaneously abolished the existing post of Hindi Instructor. Following the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee the employee was appointed as Hindi Officer with effect from 1 June 1998 in a higher pay scale.
The Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced on 9 August 1999 and later replaced by the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme which provides financial upgradations on completion of ten, twenty and thirty years of service provided the employee remains stagnant in the same post. The employee had completed twelve years of service by the time of his appointment as Hindi Officer and therefore was not eligible for the first ACP. He was subsequently granted the second MACP on the basis of his service as Hindi Officer. Later the post of Hindi Officer was re‑designated as Assistant Director with a higher grade pay, rendering the earlier MACP order ineffective. The employee superannuated on 1 September 2017 and thereafter approached the Tribunal seeking the benefit of all three upgradations. The Tribunal allowed the claim, prompting the Union of India to file the present writ petition.
The Union of India contended that the employee’s initial appointment as Hindi Instructor in 1984 should be taken as the date of reckoning for MACP purposes. It argued that because the employee had completed twelve years of service by 1996 he would not qualify for the first ACP but would still be eligible for the second and third upgradations under MACP, which had already been granted. It further submitted that the second MACP had been awarded on the basis of ten years of service as Hindi Officer and that the employee was not entitled to a third MACP having superannuated.
In contrast, the employee’s counsel argued that any promotion earned under the ACP Scheme or any upgradation arising from a merger of pay scales must be ignored for the purpose of MACP. It was submitted that the Sixth Central Pay Commission had merged the pay scales of Hindi Instructor and Hindi Officer, fixing the grade pay at Rs 4200 for both posts. Consequently the appointment as Hindi Officer could not be treated as a promotion. The employee further claimed that he was drawing a grade pay of Rs 5400 and was therefore entitled to the first, second and third financial upgradations under MACP.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W Diengdoh, examined the record and observed that there was no evidence to show that the post of Hindi Instructor was a feeder cadre for the post of Hindi Officer. The Bench noted that the creation of the Hindi Officer post and the simultaneous abolition of the Hindi Instructor post occurred on the same date, leaving no scope for a promotional avenue. The Court further observed that the Sixth Central Pay Commission had indeed merged the pay scales of the two posts, making the grade pay identical at the relevant time. Accordingly the post of Hindi Officer was not a promotional post within the meaning of the MACP Scheme.
On the basis of these findings the Court held that the employee’s appointment as Hindi Officer did not constitute a promotion and therefore could not be disregarded for the purpose of MACP financial upgradations. The Bench concluded that the employee was entitled to the first financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs 6600 with effect from 1 September 2008, the second upgradation in the grade pay of Rs 7600 with effect from 1 September 2008 and the third upgradation in the grade pay of Rs 8700 with effect from 14 November 2014 upon completion of thirty years of regular service. The direction of the Tribunal to grant all three upgradations was upheld and the writ petition filed by the Union of India was disposed of.
The decision clarifies that a mere change of designation consequent to the abolition of an earlier post and the creation of a new post, where the pay scales have been merged under a pay commission, does not amount to a promotion for MACP purposes. It reinforces the principle that financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme are to be determined solely on the basis of length of service and stagnation in a post, without being affected by nomenclatural changes that do not involve a genuine advancement in rank or responsibility. The ruling will have a bearing on similar cases where employees are moved to newly created posts following the abolition of their existing cadres, particularly in central government establishments.