The Delhi High Court has upheld the Central government's Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), which grants financial upgradation to the immediate next higher Grade Pay instead of the Grade Pay attached to the next promotional post. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 641]

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan rejected a batch of petitions challenging the scheme as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It observed that MACPS has been introduced by the Government on the recommendations of Sixth CPC, which is an Expert Body and in absence of expertise in the field, Courts are not expected to interfere.

“In the matter of Policy of State, the Courts are not expected to interfere on the ground that there can be a better or wise Policy. State has a right to change its Policy under changing circumstances and more particularly, in view of the financial constraints,” it held.

Petitioners contended that while the earlier Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) granted financial upgradation corresponding to the Grade Pay of the next promotional post, the MACPS restricts the benefit to the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the pay structure. According to them, this restored financial stagnation and defeated the object of the scheme.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that Sixth Central Pay Commission consciously replaced the promotion-linked financial upgradation model with a Grade Pay-based system to ensure uniformity across services and eliminate inconsistencies.

“The underlying premise of the Sixth CPC was that the earlier ACPS regime, being closely tied to promotional structures, had resulted in uneven outcomes across similarly placed employees in different departments, thereby creating inter-cadre disparities and inconsistent financial progression despite comparable stagnation periods.

Therefore, the MACPS was, specifically designed to address this mischief by adopting a uniform and standardised mechanism of upgradation within the Grade Pay structure, thereby ensuring parity across services and eliminating structural inconsistencies inherent in a promotion linked financial upgradation model.”

The Court also held that the policy satisfied the requirements of Article 14 as it was founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the objective of removing stagnation and ensuring administrative uniformity.

As such, the petitions were dismissed.

Case title: Ram Naresh Tiwari And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 641

Case no.: W.P.(C) 11965/2023

Click here to read order