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.

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 Subsequent to the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the ACP Scheme came to be superseded by the MACP Scheme vide the Office Memorandum dated 19th May, 2009.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 of the appellants