BSF Personnel Entitled To MACP Benefits Based On Notional Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur upheld BSF personnel's right to the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit. It noted that Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police had mandated uniform retirement at 60 years for all officers of Central Armed Police Forces. Thus, it held that notional service until 60 years must also be counted as 'regular service' for MACP evaluation. It ruled that denying MACP benefits while granting other benefits would amount to partial implementation of Dev Sharma. Background Retired BSF personnel filed a writ petition and challenged the BSFs refusal to grant them benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme. This scheme provides financial upgradations after 10, 20, and 30 years of service. The issue arose because they were initially retired at 57 years, as per earlier regulations. However, the Supreme Court in Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police (W.P.(C) 1951/2012) mandated uniform retirement at 60 years for all Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). In Dev Sharma, the Supreme Court ruled that differing retirement ages based on rank violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It extended retirement to 60 years for all ranks and allowed the additional three years to be counted for retiral benefits like pension and gratuity. However, despite this extension, those retiring between 57 and 60 years were denied the MACP benefit, as it requires 30 years of 'regular service.' They filed a writ petition and argued that notional service till 60 years should qualify as 'regular service' for MACP purposes. Arguments The retired personnel contended that Dev Sharma granted them notional service till 60 years, which should be considered as regular service for MACP benefits. They argued that denying MACP benefits while granting other retiral benefits based on notional service, was discriminatory and violated Article 14. However, BSF (state) argued that Dev Sharma did not explicitly refer to benefits under the MACP Scheme. They cited a clarification issued by the BSF Finance Wing, which stated that only those with 'regular service' at time of retirement qualified for MACP. They maintained that notional extension was only granted for retiral benefits, and service benefits like MACP, were limited to those actively serving at the time. Court's Reasoning Firstly, the court explained that Dev Sharma declared differing retirement ages for personnel unconstitutional and extended retirement to 60 years for all ranks. It emphasized that Dev Sharma mandated benefits like pension and gratuity to be calculated based on notional service till 60 years. The court found that granting some benefits while denying others, would result in partial compliance of Dev Sharma. Secondly, the court observed that the MACP Scheme provides financial upgradations on completing 10, 20, and 30 years of service. Under earlier rules, personnel retiring at 57 years were disadvantaged as they could never complete the required service period for the third MACP. However, as a consequential relief in Dev Sharma, these personnel were deemed to have served till 60. The court held that denying the MACP benefit now would hinder the full implementation of Dev Sharma. Thirdly, the court addressed the argument that MACP benefits required 'regular service'. It clarified that the MACP Scheme is linked to the length of service rather than the retirement status. Since notional service till 60 years was considered for other benefits, the court held that it must also count as 'regular service' for MACP calculation. Finally, the court ruled that personnel who completed 30 years of service, including regular and notional, were entitled to the third MACP benefit. Thus, while the court allowed the writ petition, it only limited the benefit to pension calculations, and no arrears of pay was awarded. Decided on: 19-12-2024 Case No.: W.P.(C) 6714/2023 (Jai Singh Saharan and Ors. v. Union of India) Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehraotra, Mr. Arjun Panwar, Ms. Amrit Kaul, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Ms. Muskaan Dutta, and Mr. Prahil Sharma. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Ranvir Singh, CGSC. Click Here To Read/Download The Order

BSF Personnel Entitled To MACP Benefits Based On Notional Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Praveen Kumar

Tags