IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Under MACP Scheme employees are entitled to immediate next higher grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of First Schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – MACP has nothing to do with next promotional post.
(2) High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with Government policies in form of MACP Scheme which was after accepting Sixth Central Pay Commission.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) No. 171 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the said original petition (OP) and set aside the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and has declared that respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein – original petitioners are entitled to grade pay of Rs.6600/on their third financial upgradation as per the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and they be paid the pension accordingly with effect from April, 2015, the Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi and another – original respondents before the High Court, have preferred the present appeal.

2. That the private respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein were appointed as Assistant Enforcement Officer (AEO) in the year 1976 and 1977, respectively. That in the year 2009, the Government of India – Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) notified the MACP Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees. The Scheme further provided as per clause 8.1 (which is relevant so far as the present matter is concerned) ‘consequently upon the implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations, grade pay of Rs.5400 is now in two pay bands viz., PB2 and PB3. It further provided that the grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB2 and Rs.5400 in PB3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of upgradations under MACP Scheme’. However, it so happened that while granting third financial upgradation vide order dated 17.11.2009, the private respondents herein and others were granted the grade pay of Rs.6600 for PB3 under MACP Scheme, though as per clause 8.1 PB3 carried the grade pay of Rs.5400. However, on the objection being raised by the Audit Department their grade pays (GP) of Rs.6600 in PB3 was modified/corrected as GP of Rs.5400 as per clause 8.1. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and prayed to continue the GP of Rs.6600 as per the earlier order dated 17.11.2009 and not to make any recovery. A decision of the Madras High Court was pressed into service by which a similar order of withdrawing the GP of Rs.6600 and to grant GP Of Rs.5400 for PB3 was set aside. On relying upon the clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme by which the implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations, grade pay of Rs.5400 was in two pay bands i.e., PB2 and PB3 and for grant of upgradation under MACP Scheme they shall be treated as separate grade pays, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application (OA).

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the said OA, respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein preferred the original petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order and ignoring clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme the High Court has allowed the said petition by observing that the next promotion post of Assistant Director which is in the PB3 would be that of Deputy Director which carries a grade pay of Rs.6600, when the third financial upgradation is due to an employee, it has to be of the next promotional post in the hierarchy as per the Recruitment Rules. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the department has preferred the present appeal.

4. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is just contrary to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of National Council of Educational Research & Training & Anr. Vs. Anita Gupta & Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4720 as well as to the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421.

4.1 It is submitted that on interpretation of very M