Delhi High Court: Employees Placed In HS Grade-I After De-Merger Of Post Based On Seniority Not Entitled To Grant Of MACP Scheme Benefits
The Delhi High Court elucidated that financial upgradations granted through any mechanism, must be accounted for while determining MACP entitlements.
Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that the employees placed in Highly Skilled (HS) Grade Pay-I after de-merger of the post based on their seniority are not entitled to grant of MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) Scheme benefits.
The Court was deciding a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed, “What emerges from the above is that any advancement to a higher Grade Pay, be it styled as promotion, financial upgradation, or placement following restructuring, must be reckoned for purposes of the MACP Scheme. The present case is directly covered by this principle. … we find that the petitioners, having been placed in HS Grade-I pursuant to the de-merger of the post based on their seniority, are not entitled to the grant of the MACP Scheme benefits.”
The Bench elucidated that financial upgradations granted through any mechanism, must be accounted for while determining MACP entitlements.
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Nidhi Raman represented the Petitioners, while Advocate M.K. Bhardwaj represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
In the lead case, the Respondents were initially appointed to the post of Vehicle Mechanic (Armed Fighting Vehicle), hereinafter referred to as VM(AFV) against direct recruitment. Ministry of Defence vide letter regarding restructuring of Cadre of Artisan Staff in Defence Establishment in modification of recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission (CPC), modified all the trades classified as Skilled in the Industrial as well as in the non-Industrial Establishments in the inter-grade ratio. The Respondents were then placed in the grade of HS.
On implementation of the 6th CPC, there was a further restructuring of the Artisan Staff Cadre, wherein the post of HS was divided into two grades, that is, HS Grade-I and HS Grade-II. To implement the same, the Petitioners issued a notification and a circular wherein it was mentioned that HS workers would be bifurcated. The division occurred based on the seniority and the Respondents filed an Application before the Tribunal. They claimed that their placement as HS Grade-I cannot be treated as an upgradation and, that they were entitled to the grant of the benefits under the MACP Schemes. The Tribunal agreed with the said submission and being aggrieved, the Petitioners approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “The scheme is designed to provide relief only where an employee remains stagnant in the same Grade Pay for 10, 20, or 30 years. However, where an employee has already received an advancement to a higher Grade Pay, the foundational premise of stagnation ceases to exist. The MACP Scheme does not contemplate granting benefits to employees who have already escaped the Grade Pay stagnation through any other mechanism/scheme.”
The Court said that the Petitioners received placement in HS Grade-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800, which was admittedly higher than the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 applicable to HS Grade-II and this was not a case of mere re-designation, but involved advancement to a higher Grade Pay based on seniority following restructuring.
“To ignore this advancement and grant MACP benefits would be to confer double benefit, which goes against the objective of the MACP Scheme. … Accordingly, in terms of the MACP Schemes, such placement would be required to be counted for the purpose of financial upgradation, thereby denying the petitioners the benefit of the said Schemes”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and upheld the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Satyvir Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9097-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: CGSC Nidhi Raman, Advocates Akash Mishra, Arnav Mittal, and Mayank Sansanwal.
Respondents: Advocates M.K. Bhardwaj and Sanya Narula.
