1. Dispute over grade pay entitlement under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme — correction of grade pay following audit objections. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)
M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
The Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 442 of 2022
Decided on : 28-01-2022
Important Points
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.
(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.
Subject
Employment Law - Pay and Benefits
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICE REVISED PAY RULES: .
Headnote
Service Law – Pay Scale – Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme – 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 and what the employee would be entitled would be immediate next higher grade pay in hierarchy of recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – High Court has committed grave error in allowing grade pay of Rs.6600 grade pay which was available to next promotional post as Deputy Director – Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as per PB2 were entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400 as PB3 as per clause 8.1 – ACP which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of Government policy and interfering with recommendations of expert body like pay commission and its recommendations for MACP Scheme would have serious impact on public exchequer – Recommendations of pay commission for MACP Scheme have been accepted by Government and implemented – High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with Government policies in form of MACP Scheme which was after accepting Sixth Central Pay Commission – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and judgment and order that of Central Administrative Tribunal restored – On implementation of MACP Scheme respondent No.1 and 2 herein shall be entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400 and not of Rs.6600 as claimed by them – Their pensions be refixed accordingly – Respondents being retired persons, there shall be no recovery of difference in pension between grade pay of Rs.5400 and grade pay of Rs.6600 for period prior to December, 2021. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
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 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.
Findings of Court:
By impugned judgment and order and while granting grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 virtually, High Court has modified MACP Scheme which has been framed by Government on the recommendations of expert body like pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. Manan Popli, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Alexander M. Paikaday, Adv. Mr. Sunil Roy, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. Manan Popli, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Alexander M. Paikaday, Adv. Mr. Sunil Roy, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is linked to the next promotional post's grade pay or the immediate next higher grade pay in the pay hierarchy. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The MACP Scheme requires placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the revised pay band hierarchy, regardless of the grade pay of the next promotional post. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is determined by the hierarchy of revised pay bands and grade pays, not by the grade pay of the next promotional post. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order quashed — grade pay fixed at lower rate — pension refixed — recovery of past overpayments waived. (Para 9 )
6. Does the MACP Scheme grant grade pay based on the next promotional post in the hierarchy?
No. The MACP Scheme envisages placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as per the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and is independent of the next promotional post. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. How are identical grade pays in different pay bands treated under the MACP Scheme?
Under Clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme, if the same grade pay exists in two different pay bands (such as PB2 and PB3), they are treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of granting financial upgradations. (Para 2 , 7 )
8. Can a court modify the MACP Scheme based on its own interpretation of promotional hierarchies?
No. The MACP Scheme is a matter of Government policy based on recommendations from expert bodies like the Pay Commission. Courts generally lack jurisdiction to interfere with or modify such policies unless the specific clauses are legally challenged. (Para 8 )
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
