IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Sh Prabhakara Rao Thanikonda & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Export Inspection Council & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 13777 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Condonation of Delay - ACP/MACP Benefits - Export Inspection Council - Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 - 1963 Act - RRs - ACP Scheme - MACP Scheme
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought condonation of delay in filing the counter affidavit and challenged the rejection of their ACP/MACP benefits by the Export Inspection Council (EIC) under the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (1963 Act) and the Recruitment Rules (RRs). The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to financial upgradations under the ACP and MACP Schemes, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claims were based on the merger of posts as per the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, but the EIC and EIAs had not merged or upgraded the posts, as reflected in the existing RRs. The court held that the pay structures and hierarchy of promotion were within the employer's domain, and the EIC had the autonomy to adopt or not adopt the 6th CPC recommendations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged erroneous fixation of pay under the ACP and MACP Schemes, the merger of posts as per the 6th CPC recommendations, and the applicability of the ACP/MACP benefits to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners failed to establish the merger of the posts of Junior Scientific Assistant (JSA) and Technical Officer (TO) as claimed, and the EIC had taken a categorical position that there was no merger or upgradation of posts. The court held that the EIC had the autonomy to adopt or not adopt the 6th CPC recommendations, and the petitioners' claims were not supported by the existing RRs.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the impugned order rejecting the ACP/MACP benefits was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
C.M. APPL. 45717/2022 (condonation of delay of 50 days in filing counter affidavit)
1. Present application has been preferred on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 4 seeking condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the counter affidavit.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Parveen Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Petitioners.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
5. Delay of 50 days in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.
6. Counter affidavit is taken on record.
7. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13777/2021
8. By this writ petition, Petitioners assail the impugned order dated 25.05.2021, whereby Respondents No.1 and 2/Export Inspection Council (hereinafter referred to as `EIC') have rejected the claim of the Petitioners for grant of ACP/MACP at higher Grade Pay and from earlier dates, on the ground that the posts of Junior Scientific Assistant (`JSA') and Technical Officer (`TO') were never merged and even under the existing Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `RRs'), they are separate posts, where JSA is the feeder post of post of TO.
9. The factual score, as per the narrative in the writ petition is:
(a) For development of export trade through Quality Control and Inspection and for matters connected thereto, the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `1963 Act') was enacted and under Section 3 of the said Act, EIC was set up as a Body Corporate. Under Section 7 of the 1963 Act, in order to provide the ground machinery for quality control and inspection, Central Government established five Export Inspection Agencies (hereinafter referred to as `EIAs') in Delhi, Mumbai, Kochi, Kolkata and Chennai, which function under the administrative control of the EIC.
(b) Petitioners were appointed in the EIAs on different dates as JSAs in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 (under 4th CPC) and the relevant details are as follows:
[IMG]
(c) Petitioners No.1 and 2 were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 under the 5th CPC, by order dated 03.03.1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, while Petitioner No.3 was granted the benefit vide order dated 01.10.1997 and Petitioner No.4 vide order dated 01.01.1996.
(d) Government of India, vide DoPT O.M. dated 09.08.1999 notified the Assured Career Progression Scheme (`ACP') for Central Government Civilian employees in all Ministries/Departments. ACP Scheme provides two financial upgradations, on completion of 12 and 24 years' service, in the Grade Pay in the next promotional hierarchy, subject to fulfilment of requisite norms including benchmarks for promotion to the said posts. First financial upgradation was granted to the Petitioners under the ACP Scheme as follows:
[IMG]
(e) Petitioners were thereafter promoted as TOs from the following dates in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, which was the same scale as granted to them by way of first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme:
[IMG]
(f) Petitioners No. 1 to 4 were promoted to the post of Assistant Director (AD) from the post of TO and placed in the pre-revised scale Rs.8000-13500 (revised Pay Band Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.5400/-) as under:
[IMG]
(g) DoPT notified the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (`MACP Scheme') vide O.M. dated 19.05.2009 effective from 01.09.2008, under which an employee is entitled to three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service, respectively.
(h) As per 6th CPC recommendations, posts in the pay scales Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 were to be merged with the post in pay scale Rs.6500-10500 (revised PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-). The hierarchy of posts in EIAs is JSA in pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and TO in pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and thus by virtue of para 5 of Annexure-I of MACP Scheme read with Clarificatory O.M. dated 09.09.2010 as well as Serial No.27(iii) of FAQ on MACP in DoPT O.M. dated 01.04.2011, promotion/upgradations in the p
The court emphasized the autonomy of the employer to adopt or not adopt the Central Pay Commission recommendations, and the importance of demonstrating the merger of posts as per the statutory rules.
Eligibility for ACP/MACP benefits is determined based on the conditions of the schemes and the promotions earned by the employees.
Pre-2006 placements/promotions in merged grades (same GP post-6th CPC) ignored for MACP reckoning; 3rd upgradation to GP 4600 after 10 years stagnation in GP 4200 without promotion.
Movements between Loco Pilot posts in same Grade Pay (Rs.4200) are lateral inductions, not promotions; past upgradations in merged scales ignored under MACP para 5 over para 8 for stagnation relief.
Promotions between railway guard posts in merged pre-revised pay scales (same grade pay post-VI CPC) are lateral inductions, ignored under MACPS Para 5, entitling employees to financial upgradations ....
ACP upgradation to Rs.6500-10500/- not ignored under MACP Clause 5 as post-6th CPC, feeder post carries GP Rs.4200/- while upgraded post carries GP Rs.4600/- per O.M. 13.11.2009, maintaining hierarch....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.