HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Jasbir Singh ... Petitioner VS.

UOI & Ors. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 10.03.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 18.04.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 22.04.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Sr.Panel Counsel, UOI ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

Prayer (1). The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 (Annexure P5) passed by respondent No.4 vide which respondent No.4 declined the petitioner’s claim for 3^rd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) after 30 years of continuous regular service. He seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and grant 3^rd MACPS to the petitioner.

Facts and contention on behalf of the petitioner (2). The petitioner’s primary grievance is that despite completion of 30 years of continuous regular service and extension of his retirement age from 57 to 60 years pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1951 of 2012, Dev Sharma & Others vs. Union of India, he has been illegally deprived of the 3^rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), which is otherwise admissible on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service.

(3). The petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1989 and, as per MACPS, became entitled to three financial upgradations in his service career. He was granted the 1^st MACP on 25.07.2002 and the 2^nd MACP on his promotion to the rank of SI/RO on 05.05.2010, but due to his then prevailing age of superannuation at 57 years, he superannuated on 31.10.2018 and did not receive the 3^rd MACP, though he had completed 30 years of regular service by that time. Subsequent to the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Dev Sharma (supra), the respondents themselves notionally enhanced the age of retirement of CAPF personnel from 57 to 60 years and extended all consequential retiral benefits to similarly situated personnel, which included the petitioner, whose date of retirement was notionally revised from 31.10.2018 to 31.10.2021 and whose pension and gratuity were accordingly re-fixed.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once his date of retirement stood notionally extended up to 31.10.2021 and his qualifying service stood recognized up to that date for all retiral benefits, there was no legal justification for the respondents to deny him the 3^rd MACP, which becomes due on completion of 30 years of continuous regular service under the MACPS. He asserts that from 01.07.1989 i.e. his date of joining to 31.10.2021 i.e. notional date of retirement, he rendered more than 30 years of continuous service and, therefore, fully satisfied the condition for grant of 3^rd financial upgradation under the scheme and thus the action of the respondents in confining the benefit of enhanced retirement age only to pension and gratuity, while denying consequential MACP benefits despite admitting in the impugned speaking order dated 21.06.2025 that the petitioner’s date of retirement has been notionally amended and his pension and gratuity revised is arbitrary and discriminatory.

(5). It is further the contention of the petitioner that he repeatedly approached the authorities for redressal of his lawful claim for 3rd MACP by submitting detailed representations dated 04.06.2022 and 28.11.2022, but the respondents failed to act thereon, compelling him to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing CWP No.18615 of 2024, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation dated 28.11.2022 by passing a speaking order. In purported compliance with the said direction, respondent No.4 passed the impugned speaking order dated 21.06.2025, whereby the claim