Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sh. Om Prakash & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3353 of 2021, CM Appl. 10217 of 2021
Decided On : 27-03-2023
ACP Scheme - Denial of Second ACP Benefits - [Compositor Grade-II, ACP Scheme, MACP Scheme] - [ACP Scheme, MACP Scheme] - The court discussed the ACP Scheme and MACP Scheme, emphasizing the eligibility for second ACP benefits and the counting of service from the date of absorption. The court highlighted the interpretation of the regular service clause and its impact on the grant of ACP benefits, ultimately setting aside the Tribunal's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, appointed in the Government of India Press, were denied second ACP benefits on completion of 24 years of service. The Tribunal directed the grant of second ACP benefits, which was challenged by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the regular service for the purpose of MACP shall commence from the date of absorption, and the service put in by the respondents prior to 1998 was not considered for the grant of ACP benefits. The Tribunal's direction for the grant of second ACP benefits was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were entitled to the grant of second ACP on completion of 24 years of service from the date of initial appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the regular service clause of the MACP Scheme and emphasized that the service for ACP benefits should commence from the date of absorption. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the relevant clauses and set aside the direction for the grant of second ACP benefits.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was set aside.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated January 30, 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application (`O.A.', in short) and directed the petitioners herein to grant the respondents the second ACP benefits from due dates on notional basis and revise their pension payment order and pay the pension accordingly. The arrears have been limited to the last three years i.e., w.e.f. January 01, 2017 onwards without any interest.
2. The facts as noted from the record are, the respondents were appointed as Compositor Grade-II in Letter Press Unit (`LPU', in short), Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi in the pay scale of Rs.3050-Rs.4590/- (revised) at various points of time. The respondent No.1 was appointed on October 23, 1972, the respondent No.2 was appointed on October 16, 1974 and the respondent No.3 was appointed on July 30, 1979. The next promotion post was that of Compositor Grade-I, which carried the pay scale of Rs.4000-Rs.6000/-.
3. It is the case of the parties that due to technological changes, the LPU in the press which was manually operated got changed to Photo Litho Unit (`PLU' in short), which is basically a computer based system. The respondents were declared surplus in LPU and were re-deployed to the PLU. The designation in PLU was corresponding to the designation of Compositor Grade-I in LPU, called Offset Plate Maker and it was also in the pay scale of Rs.4000-Rs.6000, i.e., same as that of Compositor Grade-I. All the respondents were redeployed as Offset Plate Maker between January 08, 1998 to January 10, 1998. This was the first financial upgradation granted to the respondents.
4. The Assured Career Progression Scheme (`ACP Scheme' in short) came into being for all Central Government employees w.e.f. August 09, 1999. This scheme was also applicable to Government of India Press and envisaged two financial upgradation in 12 and 24 years of service if one was not promoted in this period.
5. The grievance of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was that on August 09, 1999, when the ACP Scheme came into being, they had already completed 24 years of service and were granted only one financial upgradation by that time. Accordingly, they were due for second ACP benefits on that date, which has not been granted. The respondent No.3 was due for second ACP w.e.f. July 30, 2003, but was not granted.
6. When the 6th CPC was implemented w.e.f. January 01, 2006, the regime of Pay Band and Grade Pay was introduced. For the pay scale of Rs.4000-Rs.6000/-, the corresponding Grade Pay was Rs.2400/-. All the respondents were granted the next higher Grade Pay of Rs.2800 w.e.f. January 01, 2006 and it was counted as a financial upgradation. Thereafter, the MACP came to be implemented w.e.f. September 01, 2008, which envisages three financial upgradations on completion of 10/20/30 years of service, if, one was not promoted during these years. The respondents were granted third ACP benefit by way of Grade Pay Rs.4200/-. Subsequently, the respondents retired from the service in the year 2014.
7. It is in respect of denial of second ACP benefits on completion of 24 years of service that the respondents had filed the O.A. before the Tribunal.
8. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the claim is belated as they should have raised the claim on August 09, 1999 or in 2003. They have kept silent all these years and as such the petition should be dismissed.
9. The Tribunal was of the view that respondents were appointed as Compositor Grade-II in LPU in the pay scale Rs.3050-Rs.4590/-, the next promotion post was of Compositor Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4000-Rs.6000/-. In view of the change of technology, they were re-deployed to the equivalent post of Offset Plate Maker which also carried the same pay scale of Rs.4000-Rs.6000/- and this was done between January 08, 1998 to January 10, 1998. Since all t
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regular service for the purpose of ACP benefits should commence from the date of absorption, as per the MACP Scheme.
Employees completing 24 years service before 31.08.2008 entitled to 2nd ACP in GP Rs.2400/- in promotional hierarchy post pay merger, ignoring prior identical upgradations, followed by 3rd MACP in GP....
The delay in meeting promotion benchmarks and adverse gradings in ACRs justified the grant of 2nd ACP w.e.f. September 1, 2010 and the denial of the 3rd MACP.
Eligibility for ACP/MACP benefits is determined based on the conditions of the schemes and the promotions earned by the employees.
Promotion by clearing departmental examinations cannot be considered for ACP/MACP calculations under the applicable career progression schemes.
Past service should be counted for ACP/MACP benefits if it has been protected under pension rules, irrespective of pay grade changes.
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 incentiv....
The court affirmed applicants' entitlement to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, emphasizing eligibility due to completion of service years despite the introduction of....
Third MACP requires 30 years regular service; only 50% temporary casual labour service counts per Railway Board policy; substitute service pre-regularization not eligible absent rules; post-superannu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
