1. Dispute over whether employees are governed by the Assured Career Progression Scheme or the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme upon completion of required service. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 292
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
S. Ranjit Samuel & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1625-1627 of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2022
Important Points
The entitlement to benefits under the ACP Scheme was not automatic and was subject to review and consideration by the employer. The nature of benefits under the MACP Scheme was considered as incentives meant to relieve stagnation.
Subject
Employment - Employee Benefits
Act Referred
ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME: Cl.6.3
MACP SCHEME: Cl.6, Cl.7
MACP SCHEME: Cl.6, Cl.7
Headnote
Assured Career Progression Scheme - Employees - ACP Scheme, MACP Scheme - 1999, 2009 - The court considered whether employees would be governed by the ACP Scheme or the MACP Scheme. The ACP Scheme entitled employees to financial upgradations after 12 and 24 years of service, while the MACP Scheme entitled employees to financial upgradations after 10, 20, and 30 years of service. The ACP Scheme assured promotional grade, while the MACP Scheme assured higher grade pay. The court held that employees who completed 24 years of service between 1st September, 2008 and 19th May, 2009 would be governed by the MACP Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents-employees, working as Junior Engineers/Lower Division Clerks, were seeking the second benefit/financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completing 24 years of service. The appellants, Union of India, contended that the employees would be governed by the MACP Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employees would be governed by the MACP Scheme, as per the provisions of the ACP and MACP Schemes and the recent judgment of the Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the employees would be entitled to the second benefit/financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme or the MACP Scheme, considering the completion of 24 years of service between 1st September, 2008 and 19th May, 2009.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the ACP and MACP Schemes, emphasizing that the entitlement to benefits under the ACP Scheme was not automatic and was subject to review and consideration by the employer. The court also considered the nature of benefits under the MACP Scheme as incentives meant to relieve stagnation.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and it was declared that the cases of the respondents-employees would be governed by the MACP Scheme. The appellants were directed to finalize the cases of the respondents-employees for their entitlement under the MACP Scheme within three months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, Ld. ASG Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Ld. ASG Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv. Mr. VVV MBNS Pattabhiram, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gibran Naushad, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Garg,Sr.Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi,Adv. Mr. Parv Garg,Adv. Ms. Purvatwali,Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. C. Rubavathi, Adv
Advocate appeared:
For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, Ld. ASG Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Ld. ASG Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv. Mr. VVV MBNS Pattabhiram, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gibran Naushad, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Garg,Sr.Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi,Adv. Mr. Parv Garg,Adv. Ms. Purvatwali,Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. C. Rubavathi, Adv
Table of Contents
2. Whether eligibility for financial upgradation under a superseded scheme creates a vested right or if a retrospectively applied subsequent scheme governs the entitlement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Eligibility for financial upgradation under executive schemes is an expectation rather than a vested right, and such incentive-based policies can be implemented retrospectively. (Para 12 )
4. Financial upgradation under executive schemes is not an automatic right but an expectation, allowing the executive to retrospectively supersede such schemes with more beneficial policies. (Para 12 )
5. Appeals allowed; previous orders quashed; employees held to be governed by the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme. (Para 15 )
6. Does eligibility for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme create a vested right to receive the benefit?
No. Eligibility is an expectation, not a vested right. Entitlement depends on the employer reviewing records and fulfilling eligibility conditions through a Screening Committee; it is not automatic. (Para 12 )
7. Can an executive policy providing financial incentives be applied retrospectively to supersede a previous scheme?
Yes. The executive has the option to give effect to such orders from an anterior date, especially when the new policy confers advantages to a sizeable section of employees. (Para 12 )
8. Which scheme governs employees who became eligible for financial upgradation after the retrospective date of a new scheme but before its formal notification?
Employees who become due for benefits from the retrospective effective date of the new scheme are governed by that new scheme, not the superseded one. (Para 10 , 12 , 14 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The short question that falls for consideration in the present appeals is, as to whether the respondents-employees would be governed by the ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME , 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the ACP Scheme”) or by the Modified ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME , 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the MACP SCHEME ”).
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
3. The respondents-employees were working as Junior Engineers/Lower Division Clerks at the relevant point of time. Taking into consideration the fact that the employees were stagnated on a particular post for a prolonged period on account of non-availability of promotional post, the appellant-Union of India, in order to give relief to such employees, brought into effect the ACP Scheme vide Office Memorandum dated 9th August, 1999. Subsequent to the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the ACP Scheme came to be superseded by the MACP SCHEME vide the Office Memorandum dated 19th May, 2009. However, the MACP SCHEME was made applicable retrospectively with effect from 1st September, 2008.
4. As per the ACP Scheme, an employee was entitled to the first benefit/financial upgradation after completion of 12 years of regular service, if the regular promotion was not available to him/her during that period. The employee was entitled to the second benefit/financial upgradation after completion of 12 years of regular service from the date of the first benefit/financial upgradation, i.e., after completion of a total of 24 years of regular service, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The noticeable distinction between the ACP Scheme and the MACP SCHEME was that, instead of two benefits/financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme, an employee was entitled to three benefits/financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service under the MACP SCHEME . The other distinction between the ACP Scheme and the MACP SCHEME was that the former (ACP Scheme) assured the promotional grade, whereas the latter ( MACP SCHEME ) only assured higher grade pay.
5. It is not in dispute that all the respondents-employees had already availed of the first benefit/financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. They had completed their 24 years of regular service between January and April 2009. They expected that their cases would be considered by the Screening Committee in the month of January, 2009, in accordance with clause 6.3 of the ACP Scheme. In the meantime, the MACP SCHEME was brought into effect vide Office Memorandum dated 19th May, 2009, making it retrospectively applicable with effect from 1st September, 2008. Contending that they were entitled to get the second benefit/financial upgradation as per the ACP Scheme, since the right accrued to them prior to the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 19th May, 2009, the respondents made representations to the concerned Authorities. The same were rejected.
6. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred Original Applications being O.A. Nos. 818 of 2011, 1170 of 2012 and 437 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal by its orders dated 6th November, 2013, passed in O.A. No. 818 of 2011 and 26th February, 2014, passed in O.A. Nos. 1170 of 2012 and 437 of 2013, allowed the Original Applications and directed their cases to be put up before the Screening Committee for consideration for grant of second benefit/financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of 24 years of service.
7. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 33946, 34602 and 27798 of 2014, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The same were dismissed by the impugned common order dated 14th February, 2017. Hence the present appeals.
8. We have heard Ms. Madhavi G. Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf
