1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) regarding whether non-functional financial upgradations under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules count toward MACPS eligibility. (Para 2 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar, J.
Union Of India & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
N.M. Raut & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14380 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 8015 OF 2022), Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 10457-10458 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 11342-11343 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 10475-10476 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 10642-10643 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 12354-12355 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 15188-15189 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 10693-10694 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 10272-10273 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 11119-11120 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 11207-11208 of 2022) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 2995 of 2023) Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 2557 of 2023) Civil Appeal No. of. 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 3197 of 2024) Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 3198 of 2024) Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 9604 of 2024) Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 12060 of 2024) and Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) NO. 12261 of 2024)
Decided On : 12-12-2024
Important Points
The MACPS provides for financial upgradations based on service duration, distinct from promotions, and prior benefits under ACP must be considered for eligibility.
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES REVISED PAY RULES: .
Headnote
(A) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008 - The MACPS provides for three financial upgradations after 10, 20, and 30 years of service without promotions, differing from the previous Assured Career Progression Scheme. The court clarified that financial upgradations under MACPS are personal and do not equate to functional promotions. (Paras 3, 4, 20)
(B) Financial Upgradation - The court ruled that financial upgradations granted under the previous ACP Scheme must be considered when determining eligibility for MACPS benefits. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appeals concern the interpretation of MACPS and its application to various government employees, particularly regarding financial upgradations and the implications of previous schemes.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the MACPS, stating that financial upgradations must be accounted for in determining eligibility for further benefits under the scheme.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of MACPS and the treatment of prior financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that financial upgradations under MACPS are distinct from promotions and must be calculated based on previous benefits received.
Result: Appeals allowed, with directions regarding recoveries and future applications of the judgment. (Paras 20, 22, 23)
(B) Financial Upgradation - The court ruled that financial upgradations granted under the previous ACP Scheme must be considered when determining eligibility for MACPS benefits. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appeals concern the interpretation of MACPS and its application to various government employees, particularly regarding financial upgradations and the implications of previous schemes.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the MACPS, stating that financial upgradations must be accounted for in determining eligibility for further benefits under the scheme.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of MACPS and the treatment of prior financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that financial upgradations under MACPS are distinct from promotions and must be calculated based on previous benefits received.
Result: Appeals allowed, with directions regarding recoveries and future applications of the judgment. (Paras 20, 22, 23)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. D.j.bhanage, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Dharmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R. Balasubranian, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma- B, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad Sundar, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash Soni, Adv. Mr. Ponnam Mahesh Babu, Adv. Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, AOR Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Subhash Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kirti Anand, Adv. Mr. Rohit Verma, Adv. Mr. Samir Malik, AOR Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. D. J. Bhanage, Adv. Mr. Ankit Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh D. Kadasne, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Vats, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mishra, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad Sundar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. D.j.bhanage, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Dharmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R. Balasubranian, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma- B, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad Sundar, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash Soni, Adv. Mr. Ponnam Mahesh Babu, Adv. Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, AOR Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Subhash Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kirti Anand, Adv. Mr. Rohit Verma, Adv. Mr. Samir Malik, AOR Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. D. J. Bhanage, Adv. Mr. Ankit Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh D. Kadasne, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Vats, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mishra, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad Sundar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-functional financial upgradations granted under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules constitute mere pay re-fixation or should be treated as financial upgradations under the MACPS. (Para 14 )
3. MACPS prevents stagnation in Grade Pay; financial upgradations under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules are not separate from MACPS and must be accounted for to prevent excessive benefits. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 20 )
4. Financial upgradations under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules must be treated as financial upgradations earned for reckoning 10-year intervals and the three assured upgradations under MACPS. (Para 21 )
5. Appeals allowed; impugned judgments set aside; recoveries from retirees prohibited; pay and pension to be re-determined prospectively from 01.01.2025. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
6. Do non-functional financial upgradations granted under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules count as financial upgradations under the MACPS?
Yes. Financial upgradations granted under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules must be accounted for and treated as financial upgradations earned for reckoning the 10-year intervals and the three assured financial upgradations under the MACPS. (Para 16 , 20 , 21 )
7. What is the primary objective of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS)?
The objective is to ensure that a government employee does not remain stagnant in the same pay scale or Grade Pay for periods of 10, 20, or 30 years. (Para 13 )
8. Can the government recover erroneous financial benefits granted under MACPS from retired employees?
No. Recoveries should not be effected from retirees or those retiring within one year from the date of the judgment, in accordance with established legal principles regarding erroneous payments. (Para 22 )
9. How does the MACPS differ from the earlier Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS)?
ACPS provided upgradations after 12 and 24 years based on the next higher promotional post, whereas MACPS provides three upgradations after 10, 20, and 30 years based on the next higher grade pay. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT :
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 8015 OF 2022, 10457-10458 of 2022, 11342-11343 of 2022, 10475-10476 of 2022, 10642-10643 of 2022, 12354-12355 of 2022, 15188-15189 of 2022, 10693-10694 of 2022, 10272-10273 of 2022, 11119-11120 of 2022, 11207-11208 of 2022, 2995 of 2023 and 2557 of 2023
1. Leave granted.
2. This judgment decides the aforestated appeals, which are concerned with the interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 20081[For short, “MACPS.”], applicable with effect from 01.09.2008.
3. The MACPS was considered by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in “Union of India and Others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair”, (2020) 5 SCC 421 and other connected matters. This judgment elaborately compared the MACPS with the Assured Career Progression Scheme3[For short, “ACP.”], which was introduced with effect from 09.08.1999 and continued to remain in force till 31.08.2008. In a nutshell, this Court held that the MACPS differed from the ACPS on several aspects, including two significant ones. First, the ACPS envisaged financial upgradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service without one or two promotions, as the case may be, whereas the MACPS envisaged three financial upgradations after completion of regular service of 10, 20, and 30 years without promotions and continuing on the same Grade Pay for a decade. Second, the financial upgradation under the ACPS was to the pay scale of the next higher promotional post in the service whereas, under the MACPS, financial upgradation was not with reference to the next higher promotional post but to the next higher grade pay in the scale of pay, as notified upon implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 20084[CCS RP Rules].
4. The decision in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) was subsequently followed and elaborated upon by this Court in (i) “Union of India v. R.K. Sharma and Others (2021) 5 SCC 579; (ii) “Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another v. K. Sudheesh Kumar and Others (2022) 3 SCC 649”; and (iii) “Union of India and Others v. Ex.HC/GD Virender Singh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1058.”
5. In K. Sudheesh Kumar (supra), this Court had specifically dealt with Clause 8.1 of the MACPS and observed that the next financial upgradation in terms of Section 1, Part-A of the First Schedule to the CCS RP Rules, was from Pay Band8[For short, PB]-2 with Grade pay of Rs.5400 to PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400. The argument that the pay-scale and the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 was common was rejected in view of the clear stipulation in Clause 8.1 of the MACPS. The effect thereof would be that a person given financial upgradation under the MACPS from PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 to PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 will be entitled to an increment at the rate of 3%.
7. In the case of Ex.HC/GD Virender Singh (supra), the issue which had arisen was as to whether the MACPS was applicable and was to be implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, the date on which the CCS RP Rules, were enforced or was to be applied, in terms of O.M. dated 19.05.2009.
8. Ex.HC/GD Virender Singh (supra), observes that the MACPS would be applicable with effect from 01.09.2008. Upon considering the reasoning in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), it was held that the earlier decision of this Court in “Union of India and others v. Balbir Singh Turn and another” (2018) 11 SCC 99, was effectively overruled. It is relevant to refer to this settled position, as the arguments in the present cases primarily arise from the fact that the CCS RP Rules were enforced with effect from 01.01.2006 and granted certain benefits to the respondents in the form of revision or higher pay scales after completion of two or four years of service, as the case may be.
9. Ex.HC/GD Virender Singh (supra), following M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) reiterated that under the MACPS, the eligible Government employees are entitled to financial upgradation equivalent to the immediate next Grade Pay in the hierarchy of
