Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4751/2020 on 20 January, 2022
GAHC010160392020
Judgment reserved on : 21st December, 2021
Judgment delivered on : 20th January, 2022
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
W.P(C) NO.4751 OF 2020
The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, Ministry of
Textiles, Govt. of India, Central Silk Board Complex, BTM Layout,
Madiwala, Bangalore- 560068
2 The Dy. Director
Central Silk Board,Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India
Central Silk Board Complex, BTM Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore-
560068
3 The Union of India
rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi-1
4 The Secretary
Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training North Block,
New Delhi-110001
........Petitioners
-Versus-
Mira Bharali
UDC in the Central Silk Board, MSSO, Guwahati, Assam, Pin-
781038
2 Achyut Bijay Das
working as UDC in the Central Silk Board
MSSO Guwahati, Assam, Pin-781038
3 Hemashree Saikia
working as UDC in the Central Silk Board
MSSO, Guwahati, Assam, Pin-781038
4 Sailendra Nath
working as UDC in the Central Silk Board
MSSO, Guwahati, Assam, Pin-781038
5 Dipti Rani Hazarika
working as UDC in the Central Silk Board
MSSO, Guwahati, Assam, Pin-781038
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
Page 1 of 11
6 Bibhash Ch. Dey
working as UDC in the Central Silk Board
MSSO, Guwahati, Assam, Pin-781038
7 H. Jay Singh
working as Udc in the Regional Tasar Research Station, Central
Silk Board, Imphal, Manipur, Pin-795002
8 Hijam Tombi Devi
working as UDC in the Regional Tasar Research Station, Central
Silk Board, Imphal, Manipur
Pin-795002
9 Garima Rabha
working as UDC in the Regional Muga Research Station, Central
Silk Board, Boko, Assam,Pin-781123
10 Kumud Chandra Das
working as UDC in the Regional Muga Research Station, Central
Silk Board, Boko, Assam
Pin-781123
11 Laba Kumar Boro
working as UDC in the Regional Muga Research Station, Central
Silk Board, Boko, Assam,Pin-781123
12 Lila Das
working as UDC in the Regional Office
Central Silk Board, Guwahati, Assam
Pin-781038
13 Bhupendra Choudhury
working as UDC in the Regional Office
Central Silk Board, Guwahati, Assam
Pin-78103
........Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. B.C. Pathak,
Advocate.
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S. Choudhury,
Advocate.
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
(Soumitra Saikia, J)
The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board (hereinafter
referred to as "Board") and the Union of India and its officers
have approached this Court by way of a writ petition assailing the
order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in Original Application No. 188/2015. The
Central Silk Board is a Statutory Body created by an Act of
Parliament namely the Central Silk Board Act, 1948. The Board
functions under the administrative control and command of the
Ministry of Textile, Government of India. The predominant
function of the Board is Research and Development (R&D) in the
field of Sericulture. The Board has established a network of Units
across various regions of the country to carry out its activities.
The employees of the Board include Scientific, Administrative,
Technical and other operational and supporting staff. The service
Rules as applicable to the Central Government employees are
followed by the Board to regulate the service conditions of the
employees of the Board.
2. The short case projected by the petitioner is that the
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, New Delhi, notified a scheme vide the OM No.
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 09.08.1999, called Assured Career
Progression Scheme (ACPs). The said Scheme envisaged
placement of employees in higher pay scale/grant of financial
benefits through financial up-gradation to employees who faced
stagnation due to lack of promotional avenues. The scheme
provided for two (2) financial up-gradations of which the first shall
be given after completion of first 12 years of regular services and
the second after completion of further 12 years of regular services
from the date of first financial up-gradation. The said financial up-
gradation was to be given to the immediately next higher Pay
Scale as indicated in the Annexure-II to Part-A of the First
Schedule annexed to the Notification dated 30.09.1997 of the
Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
3. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievance and Pensions, New Delhi issued another scheme
namely, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme
(MACPs) vide the OM No. 35037/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.05.2009
and the same was made effective from 01.09.2008. With the
issuance of the new scheme, the earlier ACP Scheme dated
09.08.1999 was replaced and it became ineffective. This
replacement was subsequent to the revised Pay Scale as
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
approved pursuant to 6th CPC with effect from 01.01.2006. As per
the 6th CPC, the pay structure comprises Pay Band + Grade Pay
under the earlier ACP Scheme. The financial up-gradation was to
be considered and given to an employee in the next promotional
hierarchy post whereas in the new MACP Scheme, the employee
will be considered and given financial up-gradation in the
successive Grade Pay in the hierarchy of recommended revised
Pay Band and Grade Pay and not in the promotional hierarchy. As
such under the new MACP Scheme, an employee who has not
been promoted will be entitled, upon completion of each 10, 20
and 30 years of continuous regular service, financial up-gradation
are granted to such employees without promotion. The MACP
Scheme was made applicable to employees who have completed
atleast 10 years continuous service in the same Grade Pay
without any promotion. The respondents who are the applicants
before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as "CAT") were earlier appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDC)
in different offices of the Board located in the North-Eastern
Region. Subsequently, they were all promoted to the grade of
Upper Division Clerks (UDC) on different dates in the Grade Pay of
Rs. 2400/- in PB-2 of Rs. 5,200-20,200 in the pre-revised Pay
Scale of Rs. 3050-72-3950-80-4590 on 28.09.1996. The said Pay
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
Scale was revised to PB-1 of Rs. 5200-20,200 with Grade Pay of
Rs. 1900/- with effect from 01.01.2006 in view of the 6th CPC
recommendation.
As the respondents completed 12 years of regular services
after introduction of MACP Scheme which was made effective
from 01.09.2008, their cases for grant of second financial up-
gradation were considered under MACP Scheme and not under
the earlier ACP Scheme. The respondents, however, raised their
grievances by making claims under the ACP Scheme. The
respondents claimed for grant of Grade Pay which is attached to
the promotional post of Assistant i.e. the next higher promotional
post.
4. The respondents submitted their representations and which,
however were rejected by the authorities. Being aggrieved, the
respondents filed applications before the CAT, Guwahati.
Meanwhile, similar petitions were filed by other similarly situated
employees like the respondents before the Central Administrative
Tribunals in other States. One such petition was filed before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench being OA No.
1038/CH/2010 (Raj Pal -vs- Union of India) which was decided in
favour of the respondents and which subsequently also came to
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
be affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Appeal
preferred by the Union before the Apex Court was dismissed on
the point of limitation. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Gauhati Bench relying upon the said decision dated 06.03.2019
passed by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench allowed the OA filed by the
respondents as well as by relying on another order of the Tribunal
rendered in Rajini Kanta Deka vs- Union of India and Ors. and
which was affirmed by the High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong vide
Order dated 04.12.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 237/2014, held that the
respondents were entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- which was
the Grade Pay of hierarchical promotional post of the Assistant.
The CAT, Gauhati Bench while disposing of the OA directed the
Government to grant of second financial up-gradation to the
applicants i.e. the respondents herein under the MACP Scheme
from the due date fixing their pay in the hierarchy of posts
decided in their cases earlier and to pay the resultant arrears
without interest within a period of two years from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order. The CAT, Gauhati Bench relying
on the above decision allowed the OA filed by the respondents
and directed the appellants/petitioners to decide the present issue
in accordance with the aforesaid precedents after examining the
case of the applicants and if they are found similarly situated,
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
similar benefits be granted to the applicant i.e. the respondents
herein and the said direction was required to be complied with
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order.
5. It is submitted at the bar that in the meantime an order
passed by the CAT, Chennai Bench had travelled to the Apex
Court. The Apex Court considered the decision rendered by the
CAT, Chandigarh and affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court rendered in Rajpal and Ved Prakash's case (Supra). The
Apex Court after considering the various orders passed by the
CAT Benches across the country as well as the decisions rendered
by the High Courts in Raj Pal and Ved Prakash's case finally to laid
to rest the controversy.
6. The Apex Court held that the ACP Scheme had been
superseded by the MACP Scheme and which is a matter of
Government Policy. The Apex Court held that interference with
the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commissioner
and its recommendations for the MACP, will have serious impact
on the public exchequer. The Apex Court held that since the
MACP Scheme as recommended by the Pay Commission has been
accepted by the Government and there is nothing to show that
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting any interference, the
High Courts had erred in interfering with the Government's Policy
in accepting the recommendations of the 6th CPC by simply
placing reliance on Raj Pal's case. The impugned orders,
accordingly, were held to be not sustainable and were therefore
held liable to be set aside. Accordingly, all the impugned orders
passed by the various High Courts including the orders passed in
Raj Pal's case by Punjab and Haryana High Court and Rajani
Kanta Deka passed by the Meghalaya High Court were all
interfered with and the appeals preferred by the Union of India
were allowed. The Apex Court further directed that the certain
anomalies on implementation of MACP Scheme which had been
brought to the notice of the Joint Committee in the various
meetings of the Joint Committee, Union of India, were directed to
be considered by the DoP&T as deemed appropriate and to take a
decision in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsels at the bar are in agreement that the
Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of
India and Ors Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair being Civil Appeal No.
2016/2020 dated 05.03.2020 reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421 and
the directions contained therein will also cover the issue raised in
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
the present writ petition and the same can also be disposed of in
terms of the said orders passed by the Apex Court. The relevant
paragraphs of the said Judgment are extracted below:
56. The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP
Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the
recommendations of the expert body like the Pay Commission
and its recommendations for the MACP Scheme, would have
serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations
of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by
the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show
that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference.
Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the
High Courts erred in interfering with the Government's policy in
accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal case [Union
of India v. Raj Pal, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 14580] . The
impugned orders [Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, 2013
SCC OnLine Ker 11713] , [Union of India v. Reeta Devi, CWP
No. 24278 of 2013, order dated 7-11-2013 (P&H)] , [Union of
India v. Rajini Kanta Deka, 2014 SCC OnLine Megh
269] , [Union of India v. M. Swarnalatha, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd
746] , [Nagendra Pati Tripathy v. Union of India, 2016 SCC
OnLine Pat 4799] , [Union of India v. G.V.S.S. Anand, 2016 SCC
OnLine Hyd 745] cannot be sustained and are liable to be set
aside.
57. In the result, all the impugned orders [Union of
India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, 2013 SCC OnLine Ker
11713] , [Union of India v. Reeta Devi, CWP No. 24278 of 2013,
order dated 7-11-2013 (P&H)] , [Union of India v. Rajini Kanta
Deka, 2014 SCC OnLine Megh 269] , [Union of India v. M.
Swarnalatha, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 746] , [Nagendra Pati
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
Tripathy v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 4799] , [Union
of India v. G.V.S.S. Anand, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 745] in these
batch of appeals arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 21803, 22181,
23335, 23333 of 2014, 18227 of 2015, 31125 of 2016 and SLP
(C) Diary No. 6042 of 2017 are set aside and the appeals
preferred by the Union of India are allowed. Consequently,
appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 33706 of 2016 is disposed of.
No costs.
58. However, as pointed out earlier in paras 52 to 54, since
certain anomalies on implementation of the MACP Scheme have
been brought to the notice of the Joint Committee in the
various meetings of the Joint Committee, the Union of India
and DoP&T to consider the same as they deem it appropriate
and take a decision in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of in
terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.V. Mohanan
Nair (Supra). The order dated 06.03.2020 of the CAT, Gauhati
Bench passed in O.A. No. 188/2020, impugned in the present writ
petition are interfered with and set aside. No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
W.P(C) No. 4751 of 2020
