2022 Supreme(SC) 194

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NARENDER KUMAR & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 1880 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12817 of 2020) with Civil Appeal No.1881 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12666 of 2020), Civil Appeal Nos.1882-1885 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 892-895 of 2021), Civil Appeal No.1886 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12815 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1887 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12963 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.1888 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4288 of 2022) (Arising out of SLP (C) Dy. No. 19635 of 2020)
Decided On : 08-03-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Promotion – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – Date of operation of new pay scales cannot be per se the same when operation of another scheme (which may also involve pay benefits) need not be the same.
(2) Promotion – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – Courts should, in absence of any facially compelling reason disclosing arbitrariness desist from stepping into arena of decision making, and avoid directing their reformulation or even requiring such schemes to be administered from any anterior period.
(3) Determination of an anterior date operation of a rule which has effect of nullifying or refacing intervening events or invalidating benefits which had been granted to public employees, is unconstitutional – In present context, none of employees actually earned a second financial up-gradation.
(4) Promotion – That, some employees could have benefitted more under ACP benefits, if MACP scheme had not been introduced from an earlier date, is no ground to hold so and compel an executive agency to grant claimed benefits.
(5) Promotion – MACP benefits are only an incentive meant to relieve stagnation framed under executive policy – Its continued existence cannot be termed as an enforceable right.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Promotion – Application of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – Financial up-gradation under ACP Scheme was available only if regular promotion during stipulated intervals, 12 years and 24 years, were not granted to an employee – A singular feature of ACP scheme was that while benefit was pay based, employee had to fulfil prescribed criteria (i.e., qualifications, experience, and also possess requisite service records) to be eligible for benefits – ACP benefit was a promotional grade, divorced from existence or otherwise of any vacancy, and without necessarily being functional in higher grade, with attendant responsibilities – Reasoning of High Court that MACP scheme is operative not from 01-09-2008, but from 01-01-2006, is untenable – Mere circumstance that resolution of Government which led to adoption of MACP also contained effective date for implementation of pay-benefits of Pay Commission recommendations, did not obliterate fact that date from which scheme was to be made effective, was another one – Date of operation of new pay scales cannot be per se the same when operation of another scheme (which may also involve pay benefits) need not be the same – Shifting of dates (once settled by executive after due deliberations) may seemingly have no consequences, but inevitably would have radical financial implications – Courts should, in absence of any facially compelling reason disclosing arbitrariness desist from stepping into arena of decision making, and avoid directing their reformulation or even requiring such schemes to be administered from any anterior period. (Paras 21, 27 and 28)

(B) Service Law – Promotion – Application of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – DDA is an autonomous statutory organization – It largely follows Central Government’s policies, in respect of pay and allowances, and other benefits for its employees – However, any revision of pay-structure or revision in other terms and conditions, of Central Government personnel cannot and do not automatically apply to the DDA; it has to consider new or fresh scheme formulated by Central Government, and adopt it, if necessary, after appropriate adaptation, to suit its needs – Central Government’s MACP scheme did not apply to it automatically – Determination of an anterior date of operation of a rule which has effect of nullifying or refacing intervening events or invalidating benefits which had been granted to public employees, is unconstitutional – In present context, none of employees actually earned a second financial up-gradation – They became eligible for consideration – However, eligibility ipso facto could not, having regard to terms of ACP scheme, translate into an entitlement – Eligibility was an expectation – To be entitled to benefits, public employer (DDA) had to necessarily review and consider employees’ records, to examine whether they fulfilled eligibility conditions and, based on such review individual orders had to be made by DDA – Second ACP up-gradation was not automatic but dependant on external factors – MACP benefits are only an incentive meant to relieve stagnation framed under executive policy – Its continued existence cannot be termed as an enforceable right – Such expectation is akin to a candidate being declared successful in a recruitment process and whose name is published in select list – Employees’ contention that they acquire a vested right in securing second ACP benefit is insubstantial – MACP scheme is an executive order – Usually, such orders are expressed to be prospective – However, executive has option of giving effect to such an order, from an anterior date; especially if it confers some advantages or benefits to a sizeable section of its employees, as in this case – Nature of benefits were by way of incentives – They are not embodied under rules – In such circumstances, a set of employees, who might have benefitted from then prevailing regime or policy, cannot in absence of strong and unequivocal indications in later policy which might be given effect to from an anterior date, insist that they have a right to be given benefits under superseded policy – A larger section of employees would benefit from MACP benefits, because they are to be given after 10-, 20- and 30-years’ service as compared with two benefits, falling due after 12 and 24 years of service and further that such benefits under MACP scheme are subjected to less rigorous eligibility requirements than under ACP scheme. (Paras 29, 33, 34, 35 and 36)

(C) Service Law – Promotion – Application of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – That, some employees could have benefitted more under ACP benefits, if MACP scheme had not been introduced from an earlier date, is no ground to hold so and compel an executive agency to grant claimed benefits – Myriad intricate details which executive has to consider, while framing a scheme applicable generally, to a large section of employees, may not always admit of one, or one set of solutions – To insist that a particular kind of benefit, hitherto applicable, should be continued for a set of employees, while others should be governed by another, new set or scheme, would be imposing a significant burden on administration, apart from swelling financial costs as well as administrative energies – Such directions would result in creating different time warps, rendering efficient administration of personnel policies impracticable – Sans palpable or facial arbitrariness, courts should be circumspect in adding conditions, or tampering with such arrangements – Appeals filed by DDA allowed and appeals preferred by employees dismissed. (Paras 37 and 38)

Facts of the case:

In all these appeals, common question which arises is whether reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court to hold, and direct that Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (“MACP”) had to be applied from 01-01-2006, is correct. The appellant, Delhi Development Authority (“DDA” or “the employer”) is primarily aggrieved by the ruling of Delhi High Court. Some of the successful petitioners have also appealed to this court, contending that High Court’s directions were not correct and seek a modification of relief granted by the impugned judgment. DDA has preferred another appeal against a subsequent order which followed previous order (dated 9th January, 2020).

Findings of Court:

During the pendency of proceedings before the CAT, benefits sought by the employees were granted, under interim orders, but subject to the final outcome. In these circumstances, benefits claimed by such of the applicant/employees, granted to them under the ACP scheme, can be reversed by DDA. However, where applicants were given MACP benefits by DDA, on its consideration that they were entitled to it, from later dates (such as from 2010-2011 or later dates) shall not be disturbed.

Result : Appeals filed by DDA allowed and appeals preferred by employees dismissed.