SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 951

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
VIJAYAN D. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 26319/2019



Advocates:
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA, SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI

IMPORTANT POINT
Retired personnel must seek eligibility recognition for ACP/MACP benefits from the competent authority before any claims can be considered.

Headnote:

(A) Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - ACP Scheme and MACP Scheme - Retired personnel of CRPF/BSF claim benefits under ACP/MACP schemes - Petitioners assert entitlement based on prior judgments from Delhi High Court - Central Government Counsel cites Supreme Court decisions favoring the Government - No prior consideration of eligibility by employer noted. (Paras 1 - 5 )

(B) Judicial Precedents - The court acknowledges the relevance of previous judgments but emphasizes the need for eligibility assessment by the competent authority before any benefits can be granted. (Para 4 )

Facts of the case:

Petitioners, retired from CRPF/BSF, claim benefits under ACP/MACP schemes based on precedents from the Delhi High Court. The Central Government Counsel argues that Supreme Court rulings have favored the Government regarding similar claims. (Paras 1 - 3 )

Findings of Court:

The court disposed of the petitions, directing petitioners to submit representations for benefits under the ACP/MACP schemes and mandating the competent authority to consider these applications. (Paras 5i-5ii)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners are entitled to benefits under ACP/MACP schemes and the necessity of prior eligibility consideration by the employer. (Paras 3 - 4 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners must first seek eligibility recognition from the competent authority, reinforcing the principle that benefits cannot be granted without proper assessment of claims. (Para 5 )

Result: Writ petitions disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are stated to have retired from the CRPF/BSF claiming the benefits available under the ACP Scheme/MACP Scheme.

2. Heard the Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 26275 of 2019 and Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).Nos. 28515 and 26319 of 2019. I have also heard Sri.N.S.Dayasindhu Sreehari, Sri.P.Krishnadas Nair and Smt.Mini Gopinath on behalf of the respondents here.

3. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to get the MACP benefits with reference to a series of judgments issued by the Delhi High Court. However, the learned Central Government Counsel would point out that, though the SLPs preferred from the judgments produced in the writ petitions have been rejected, in a subsequent set of cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the entitlement qua the similarly placed persons like the petitioners herein, deciding the issue in favor of the Government.

4. At the same time, it is pointed out by Sri.Nirmal V.Nair that the consideration made by the Delhi High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court was with reference to the entitlements under MACP scheme whereas, the petitioners may also be entitled for the benefits available under ACP Scheme, with reference to the number of years put in by them.

5. In any event, I notice that in these case, as of now, there is no consideration as regards the eligibility of the petitioners at the hands of the employer. In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of under;

i. The petitioners to file an appropriate representation before the competent authority of the force, seeking the benefits available under the ACP/MACP Scheme, within a period of 4 weeks from today.

ii. If such an application is being filed by the petitioners, the competent authority of the force to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a further period of six weeks thereafter.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top