Background Facts

The Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) was introduced by the Government of India pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The ACPS was introduced to address stagnation and hardship faced by employees due to lack of promotional avenues. The Scheme envisaged two financial upgradations on completion of 12 and 24 years of regular service.

Subsequently, upon the recommendations of Sixth CPC, the Government introduced MACPS in supersession of the ACPS, with effect from 01.09.2008. The revised regime prescribed three financial upgradations upon completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service by granting placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

The employees filed petitions challenging certain clauses of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) which provide financial upgradation only to the next higher Grade Pay and not to the Grade Pay corresponding with the next higher promotional rank.

It was argued by the employees that the introduction of ACPS effectively removed stagnation in service by granting timely financial upgradations, however, the implementation of MACPS again restored the stagnation within the financial pay structure.

It was contended by the employees that the Government's rationale for introducing MACPS that ACPS led to unequal benefits for employees in the same pay scale across different organisations, was not a valid basis, as different departments cannot be meaningfully compared. It was further argued that the prohibition on stepping up under MACPS is in violation of the objectives, since a senior is bound to get more salary.

It was further contended that the retrospective application of the MACPS, w.e.f. 01.09.2008, has unfairly denied financial upgradation to employees who had already completed 24 years of service, making the Scheme arbitrary. It was argued that at the time of introduction of the MACPS, departments were given an option to continue with the ACPS, however, their failure to exercise the said option has defeated the legitimate expectations of the employees.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the Supreme Court made the Scheme effective since 01.09.2008 instead of 01.01.2006. It was further argued that in Ravish Chander&Ors. v. Union of India&Ors., a similar challenge seeking reliefs was rejected by the Court.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Court that the MACPS was introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth CPC, in supersession of the earlier ACPS. Its object was to remedy the structural anomalies and inter-departmental disparities which had emerged under the earlier regime.

It was further observed that the shift from a promotional hierarchy-linked model to a Grade Pay based financial upgradation system is founded on a conscious and rational policy decision taken by an expert body. Therefore, it was held by the Court that the employees' plea on basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation is untenable and cannot be invoked to assail a change in Policy in fiscal and service matters.

It was further observed that the MACPS is a beneficial Policy adopted by the Government, grounded in expert recommendations and intended to address systemic anomalies, hence, there was no arbitrariness.

It was also observed that the threefold challenge raised by the employees is not acceptable since classification in service jurisprudence is permissible where it is founded on a rational policy objective. It was further held that fixation of a cut-off date is inherently within the domain of policymaking and cannot be interfered with unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary.

It was held by the Division Bench that the MACPS is a valid policy decision based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. It does not violate Article 14. It was further held that financial upgradation under MACPS is rightly granted to the next higher Grade Pay, not the next promotional post, to ensure uniformity and remove anomalies across departments.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions filed by the employees were dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Ram Naresh Tiwari&Ors. v. Union of India&Ors.

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

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ankur Chhiber and others

Counsel for the Respondents : Vijay Joshi CGSC, Shubham Chaturvedi, Advocate and others