Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Union of India And Others – Appellants
Versus
Harbans Lal Verma – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9346 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35363 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No. 9347 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25103 of 2026) @ Diary No. 67055 of 2025 And Civil Appeal No. 9348 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11050 of 2026)
Decided On : 23-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, AOR Mr. Keshav Baheti, Adv. Mrs. Aanchal Maheshwari, Adv. Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Dr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mr. D.M. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Amrita Behera, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anshu Singh, Adv. Mr. Anshita Sharma, Adv.

Functional promotions within a cadre's established hierarchy must be counted for career progression benefits, regardless of whether they result in increased Grade Pay. Financial benefits under the scheme cannot exceed the Grade Pay ceiling established by the highest promotional post in the cadre.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Art. 136 - Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), Paragraphs 2, 5, and 8 - Financial upgradation - Entitlement - Functional promotions within a cadre carrying the same Grade Pay - Whether such movements constitute “promotions” under the scheme - Held, yes - Promotions involve defined hierarchy, selection, and enhanced responsibility - Any movement within the promotional hierarchy, notwithstanding the convergence of Grade Pay post-pay revision, accounts for financial upgradation slots under the scheme - Paragraph 8 is designed to prevent identical treatment between stagnant employees and those who received functional promotions. (Paras 37, 40-42)

(B) MACPS - Ceiling on financial progression - Financial benefit under the scheme cannot result in a Grade Pay higher than that available upon normal promotion within the terminal post of the cadre hierarchy - An employee having reached the terminal post of the hierarchy is not entitled to further financial progression beyond the Grade Pay of that terminal post. (Paras 11, 50, 54)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought financial upgradations under the scheme, arguing that despite receiving internal cadre promotions, the Grade Pay remained stagnant. The claimant asserted entitlement to higher Grade Pays, arguing that the merger of pay scales rendered prior functional promotions irrelevant. The lower courts upheld the claim, leading to the present appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that internal functional promotions within the cadre hierarchy, even when carrying the same Grade Pay, are valid promotional steps. The transitional provision regarding merging pay scales does not permit ignoring post-scheme promotions. The scheme is not designed to grant benefits exceeding the technical ceiling of the existing promotional ladder.

Issues: Whether functional promotions within a hierarchy involving constant Grade Pay are to be excluded from computation under the scheme, and whether transitional provisions in the scheme override mandatory counting of promotions.

Ratio Decidendi: The mandate to count functional promotions under the scheme is absolute regardless of the Grade Pay parity. The scheme serves as a substitute for missed promotional opportunities and does not facilitate financial windfalls for employees who have already attained the terminal post of their career trajectory.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural history, factual background, and origin of the macps dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. appellants contend that functional cadre hierarchy and railway board circulars limit macp eligibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. respondent argues macp entitlement rests on grade pay hierarchy and paragraph 5 illustrations. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. the court analyzes the spirit of the macps as a financial progression scheme. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. paragraph 8 of macps mandates counting functional promotions despite identical grade pay. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
6. financial stagnation is not proven if functional promotional opportunities were continuously afforded. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
7. the court sets aside previous orders and affirms railway board's circular mandate. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)

JUDGMENT

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Although we are deciding the instant appeals together because of the commonality of the issues involved, the facts are being taken for the sake of convenience and at the consent of the counsel for both parties, who have submitted their written submissions and even addressed this Court from Harbans Lal Verma’s case i.e., Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.35363/2025.

3. This appeal, filed by the Union of India and other Railway authorities under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, assails the judgment and order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16939/2024. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Appellants and thereby affirmed the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter, "the Tribunal"), passed in O.A. No. 468/2011 dated 11.07.2014 and O.A. No. 92/2015 dated 11.07.2024, which directed the Appellants to extend the 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter, "the MACPS") to the Respondent, a retired Mail/Express Guard, to Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Grade Pay Rs. 4800 respectively.

4. The question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the promotions earned by the respondent within the Guard cadre are liable to be counted for the purpose of financial upgradation under the MACPS and, consequently, whether he is entitled to financial upgradation beyond Grade Pay Rs.4200.

5. The Respondent, Harbans Lal Verma, joined the Indian Railways as a Goods Guard on 13.08.1976 in the West Central Railway, Kota Division, in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. On 13.03.1992, he was promoted to Passenger Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1400-2600 with effect from 01.03.1993. Thereafter, on 22.06.1993, he was promoted to Mail/Express Guard in the same revised scale of Rs. 1400-2600, the highest post within the Guard cadre. He occupied the post of Mail/Express Guard from 22.06.1993 until his retirement on superannuation on 31.03.2009, a period of more than fifteen years, and his entire service career of over thirty-two years was spent within the Guard cadre.

6. The recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission resulted in revision of the pay structure (hereinafter, "the Sixth CPC") applicable to the Guard cadre. Prior to the Sixth CPC, the Guard cadre comprised posts in distinct and separately remunerated pre-revised pay scales: Goods Guard was in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000; Senior Goods Guard and Passenger Guard were in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000; Senior Passenger Guard and Mail/Express Guard were in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000. These three distinct scales, representing different levels of pay progression within the cadre, were compressed by the Sixth CPC into two Grade Pays: Goods Gua

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Functional promotions within a cadre's established hierarchy must be counted for career progression benefits, regardless of whether they result in increased Grade Pay. Financial benefits under the scheme cannot exceed the Grade Pay ceiling established by the highest promotional post in the cadre.

Cases Referred (5)