The effective date for the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for civilian employees is 01.09.2008, not 01.01.2006, as established by Supreme Court rulings.

ORDER(Oral)

Per: MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):

1. The applicants have preferred instant O.A under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following relief:

“The respondents be directed to grant 3^rd MACP to the applicants in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 +GP 4600 by extending them benefit of judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balbir Singh Turn (supra), R.K.Sharma (supra), Sh. M.P.Joseph (Supra) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or completion of 30 years of service with all consequential benefits like arrears of difference of pay and allowances and revised pensionary benefits from due dates along with interest from the dates of judgement of Supreme Court till the date of actual payment is made”

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this OA are the applicants initially joined service with the respondents department as Elect, PHO, Carpenter, Painter etc. The applicants were granted benefit of second ACP scheme with pay scale revised to Rs. 9300-34800 + GP 4200 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The Central Government introduced MACP scheme vide OM dated 19.05.2009 granting three financial up gradations after completion of 10/20/30 years service respectively. After the introduction of MACP scheme, the applicants were granted the benefit of 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 9300- 34800 + GP 4600 and they retired from service, in the said pay scale. The contention of applicant is that the effective date of MACP scheme is 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Turn Vs. Union of India 2018(11) SCC 99, however, they were granted the benefit of 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 only. The applicants submitted various representations and legal notice was served upon respondents. But, the said claim of the applicants were rejected by respondents on the ground that the judgement ( supra ) is applicable to civilian employees only. The applicants are aggrieved by the action of respondents in denying the benefit of 3^rd MACP to them w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008, thus leading to filing of this OA.

3. The respondents have filed the written statement filed by respondents stating that the claim of applicant has been rejected as he preferred claim after a lapse of more than 10 years and as per notification regarding MACP, the MACP was introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and not on 01.01.2006, as claimed by the applicant. Respondents have further submitted that DOPT vide letter dated 19.05.2009 has issued OM for Modified Assured Carrier Progressions Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees and as per para 9 of the said OM is it stated that “the scheme would be operational w.e.f. 01.09.2008. in other words, financial upgradations as per the provision of earlier ACP scheme ( of August 1999 ) would be granted till 31.08.2008”. It has been further submitted that the claim of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents on the plea that the effective date of implementation of MACP Scheme was 01.09.2008 and not 01.01.2006.

4. The applicant has not filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by respondents.

5. We have considered the matter and have gone through the averments made in the pleadings. From the pleadings, it is clear that the controversy of effective date of implementation of MACP Scheme qua civilian employees is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma & Others, 2021 (5) SCC 579 , after examining the judgments rendered in the case of Balbir Singh Turn (supra) and M.V. Mohanan Nair , (2020) 5 SCC 421 , settled the issue holding that the MACP Scheme qua civilian employees would be effective from 01.09.2008. The plea of the employees to implement the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was rejected. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“7. For a better understanding of the dispute in these cases, it is necessary to examine the judgments of this Court in Balbir Singh Turn (supra)