MACP Scheme w.e.f 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008: Sharing of information regarding favourable judgment: Railway Board
File No.PC-V/2021/CC/Judgements –
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/भारत सरकार
MINISTRY OF RAILWAY/रेल मंत्रालय
(RAILWAY BOARD) रेलवे बोर्ड
No. PC-V/202 1/CC/Judgements
New Delhi, dt.2707.2021
The General Manager (P)
All Indian Railways / PUs
Sub: Sharing of information regarding favourable judgment.
Please refer to Board’s letter No. PC-V/2009/ACP/2 dt. 10-06-2009 (RBE No. 101/2009) regarding grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01-9-2008. However, several Court Cases were filed seeking MACP benefit w.e.f. 01-01-2006. This issue finally stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide their judgement in CA No. 1579 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) no. 15572 of 2019) filed by Shri R. K. Sharma & Ors. Vs UOI dt. 28-04-2021 (Copy enclosed) disposing a bunch of SLP(C)’s involving this issue. Hon’ble Court rejected the claim that MACPS should be applicable from 01-01-2006 observing that the benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Scheme are incentives and are not part of pay. DoP&T’s O.M. No.35034/3/2015-Estt.(D), dated 13-07-2021 on the same issue is also enclosed.
2. It is advised that the aforementioned order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court may please be brought to the notice of all the concerned including the officials of the Divisions with instructions to ensure its effective utilisation while contesting the cases involving identical issue.
3. Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter.
DA: As above.
(Sudha A Kujur)
Dy. Director, Pay Commission
Directorate General, ITBP
MHA(Govt of India)
Block-2, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Sub: References/Representation/Court Cases for grant of financial benefits under MACP Scheme w.e.f 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008-reg.
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of Judgment dated 28.04.2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on the subject cited above.
2. The Hlon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgment dated 28.04.2021 has disposed of following SLPs(C), wherein the Apex Court has refused to accept submission of the employee that MACPS should be made applicable w.ef 01.01.2006 and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Also stated that benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Scheme are incentives and are not part of pay.
(i) SLP(C) No. 1807 of 2021 titled UO] & Ors Vs Ranjeet Singh & Ors filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India arising out of impugned final Judgment/Order dated 24.09.2019 passed. by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 13312 of 2018.
(ii) SLP(C) No, 11599 of 2020 titled UOI & Ors Vs Karamvir & Ors filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India arising out of impugned final Judgment/Order dated 20.01 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 868 of 2020.
(iii) SLP(C) No. 28112 of 2019 titled UOI & Ors Vs Chand Ram filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India arising out of impugned final Judgment/Order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 7620 of 2018.
(iv) SLP(C) No. 15773 of 2020 titled UO! & Ors Vs Prakash Kumar & Ors filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India arising out of impugned final Judgment/Order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 13051 of 2019.
(v) SLP(C) No. 11749 of 420 titled UO] & Ors Vs Phool Kanwar & Ors filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India arising out of impugned final Judgment/Order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 1527 of 2020.
3. Accordingly, all formations are requested to dispose of all pending grievances seeking MACP benefits w.e.f 01.01.2006 instead of 01 09.2008, and also to defend the various pending Court Cases or to take immediate suitable action for appealing against such judgments which are contrary to the existing policy.
4, For information and necessary action.
Encl: As above.
For Senior Administrative Officer(Estt)
There are some employees who were Already granted first ACP prior to 01 Jan 2006. Lateron
New MACP they were granted 2nd and third MACP w.e.f 01 Sep 2008. Since they were granted 2nd and 3rd ACP. Their secheme was already implemented. Further it was also stated that grant of MACP has nothing to do with pay structure, seniority etc. Therefore DOPT contention that some employees will face recoveries is totally wrong. Dopt should immediately implemented the MACP w.e.f 01 Jan 2006.
Very rightly said. Those employees who were granted 1st ACP prior to 2006 should be given benefit from 01 Jan 2006, because. If they have completed 20yrs or 30 yrs between 01 Jan 2006 and 01 Sep 2008, these all should be given MACP benefits w.e.f.01 Jan 2006. Justice should be done to old Senior employees, most of them retired now. Hon Supreme court should take into their old service. In my case I had already completed 30 years on 2002. I got 1st ACP in 2004, it should be from 2002 onwards. Now when MACP formed in 2008 it was based on 6th pay commission decision i.e. from 2006.MACP should be regularised from 1 Jan 06. An appeal should be made before Supreme Court.
May kindly anyone convey towards further devlopment in case on assignment of MACP w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008.
The decision / verdict given by the hon,blue Supreme Court regarding MACP as an incentive to employees does not seem to be consistent because the matter relates to promotion policy of a govt.for their employees & as such constitutes the part of pay as is done in normal promotions in service. All conditions of MACP are the same as are being observed in general promotions of govt. servants.Moreover, the same scheme i.e. MACP cannot be defined differently for two departments of central govt. i.e.defence & civilians as has been done in the instant case by the hon,blue Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision needs to be reviewed in the light of provisions of articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. The contention of the sixth pay commission was the same regarding the implementation of the uniform scheme of MACP for defence & civilian employees hence it,s discriminative use by the central govt. is wholly unjustified.