Tripura High Court
W.A. No.196/202 vs Sri Tarun Kumar Bhatta & Others on 5 January, 2021
Page 1 of 23
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
1. W.A. No.196/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Tarun Kumar Bhatta & others
-----Respondent(s)
Connected with
2. W.A. No.214/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Nirmal Kanti Ray
-----Respondent(s)
3. W.A. No.215/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Chitta Ranjan Debroy
-----Respondent(s)
4. W.A. No.216/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Shyamal Chandra Dey
-----Respondent(s)
5. W.A. No.217/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Kanu Ranjan Das
-----Respondent(s)
6. W.A. No.218/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Sunil Sutradhar
-----Respondent(s)
7. W.A. No.219/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Biswajit Majumder
-----Respondent(s)
8. W.A. No.220/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Ashish Chakraborty
-----Respondent(s)
9. W.A. No.221/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Dulal Chakraborty
-----Respondent(s)
10. W.A. No.222/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Amitabha Bhattacharjee & others
-----Respondent(s)
11. W.A. No.223/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Kamalendu Majumder
-----Respondent(s)
12. W.A. No.226/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Sabir Chandra Sen
-----Respondent(s)
13. W.A. No.227/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Prabir Dey
-----Respondent(s)
14. W.A. No.228/2020
The State of Tripura & others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Mrityunjoy Bhowmik & others
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Date of hearing : 15th December, 2020.
Date of judgment : 5th January, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)
These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 31.10.2019 passed in WP(C) No.1170 of 2018 and
connected petitions. Appeals are filed by the State. The respondents-original
petitioners had filed the above mentioned petitions praying for grant of pay
scale of Rs.1450-3710/- corresponding to revised scale of Rs.5000-10,300/-
upon completion of 10 years of service in the grade of Radio Technician
(ASI)/Wireless Operator (ASI). Their further prayers were for being placed
in pay scale of Rs.1700-3980/- corresponding to revised scale of Rs.7450-
13,000/- upon completion of total of 17 years of service and thereafter for
grant of pay scale of Rs.2100-5000/- corresponding to revised scale of
Rs.10,000-15,100/- upon completion of 25 years of service. Individual facts
differ; however, these differences are inconsequential so far as the issues
involved in these appeals are concerned. We may, therefore, record facts
from WP(C) No.1170 of 2018 filed by Sri Tarun Kumar Bhatta and others.
These petitioners were appointed as Wireless Operators (ASI) or Radio
Technicians (ASI) on or around 09.04.1990. They were governed by the
Revised Pay Rules, 1988 (ROP, for short) implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
Under ROP, 1988 the scales of pay revised for various posts such as,
Inspector of Police, Supervisor (SI) and Radio Technician (ASI) and
Wireless Operator (ASI) with pre-revised and modified scales were as
under:
Sl. Name of the Pre revised Re-designation Modified Revised Selection
No. posts scale of the post, if scale, if scale Grade shall
any any be
1. Inspector of 650-1595/- - 750-1750/- 1700- admissible
Police 3980/- after 10
(Wireless) years, of
2. Supervisor Gr. 560-1300/- (i)Selection 600-1440/- 1450- service in
I (SI) Grade 3710/- the basic
Supervisor (SI) Grade,
subject to
Supervisor Gr. 560-1300/- (ii)Supervisor 1300- fitness. In
II (SI) (SI) 3220/- case of
existing
3. Radio 430-850/- (i)Selection 560-1300/- 1300- employees
Technician Grade Radio 3220/- who have
(ASI) Technician completed
(ASI) 10 years of
Service on
(ii)Radio 1.1.86 or
Technician 1250- on the date
(ASI) 2890/- of coming
over to the
revised
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** scale, pay
shall be
7. Wireless 430-850/- (i)Selection 560-1300/- 1300- fixed
Operator (ASI) Grade Radio 3220/- directly in
Technician the
(ASI) Selection
grade
scale.
(ii)Radio
Technician 1250-
(ASI) 2890/-
2. The Government of Tripura issued office memorandums dated
07.11.1992 and 21.09.1995 enhancing the pay scale for Supervisor (SI) from
Rs.1300-3220/- to Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 01.11.1992. Some of the
Supervisors aggrieved by not revising the then existing scale to Rs.1450-
3710/- from 01.01.1986, filed civil suits. These civil suits were dismissed by
the trial Court. Their First Appeals were allowed upon which the State of
Tripura filed Regular Second Appeal No.44 of 2003 in case of The State of
Tripura & others vrs. Sri Tarun Chandra Dey & others, and connected
appeals before the Gauhati High Court. These appeals were disposed of by a
common judgment dated 10.01.2006 by the learned Single Judge. The
judgment of the appellate Court was confirmed. The State appeals were
dismissed. The High Court noted that the plaintiffs were already given the
pay scales of Rs.1700-3980/- from 01.11.1992 which was the pre-revised
scale of Inspector of Police which was granted to them upon completion of
10 years of service without promotion by way of the benefit of Career
Advancement Scheme under ROP, 1999. The State thereupon approached
the Supreme Court but the SLP was dismissed. The situation, therefore, that
emerged was that by virtue of the office memoranda dated 07.11.1992 and
21.09.1995 and by virtue of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in case
of Tarun Chandra Dey (supra) the scale of pay for the post of Supervisor
(SI) stood revised to Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
3. The Government of Tripura promulgated Revised Pay Rules,
1999 (ROP, 1999 for short) giving effect from 01.01.1996. Under these
rules, for Supervisors the scale of pay was revised from Rs.1450-3710/- to
Rs.5000-10,300/-. In case of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to which
cadre the petitioners belong their scale of Rs.1300-3220/- granted upon
completion of 10 years of service, was revised to Rs.4200-8650/-.
Accordingly, under order dated 01.11.2001 all the petitioners were granted
the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/- and their pay was
accordingly fixed at an appropriate stage. Subsequently, the petitioners were
granted benefit of CAS-II upon completion of further 7 years of service after
granting benefit of CAS-I. Accordingly, under orders dated 04.11.2008 and
06.11.2008, their pay was fixed at corresponding stages in the higher pay
scale of Rs.5000-10,300/- from the existing pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/-.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that upon completion of 10
years of service they should have been fitted against the revised pay scale
corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/-. Accordingly,
their request was that their pay should have been fixed in the scale of
Rs.5000-10,300/- in the year 2001 upon completion of 10 years of service
by way of CAS-I. Thereafter upon completion of further 7 years of service
they should have been placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.7450-13,000/-
corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/- and by way of
further benefit of 3rd upgradation upon completion of further 8 years of
service or total of 25 years of service they should have been placed in the
scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/- corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.2100-
5000/-. The foundation for making these prayers is their contention that at
the time of introduction of ROP, 1988 the post of Supervisor carried the pay
scale of Rs.560-1300/- which was also the pay scale prescribed for the post
of Radio Technician (ASI) and Wireless Operator (ASI) and under ROP,
1988 this scale was revised to Rs.1450-3710/- for Supervisors. According to
them, the pre-revised scale of Rs.560-1300/- was revised to Rs.1300-3220/-
w.e.f. 01.01.1986 under the said ROP and the same pay scale has been
allowed as a gradation scale to Radio Technicians and Wireless Operators
after completion of 10 years of service by the appointing authority. They,
therefore, contend that this is the wrong interpretation of the rules since re-
designated scale and gradation scale cannot be equal. They point out that by
virtue of the memoranda dated 07.11.1992 and 21.09.1995 and the decision
of the Gauhati High Court in case of Tarun Chandra Dey (supra) the pay
scale for Supervisors stood revised to Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
They, therefore, contend that upon completion of 10 years of service, by
way of benefit of CAS under ROP, 1999 they should have been placed in the
pay scale corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.1450-3710/- and their pay
should have been accordingly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-10,300/-.
The rest of the reliefs would be by way of cascading effect.
5. The Government had opposed the petitions. In the reply, it was
contended that the scale of pay for the promotional post of Supervisor and
that of Wireless Operator/Radio Technician was never equal. They pointed
out that the petitioners had compared the modified scale of the Wireless
Operator/Supervisor with that of the present scale of the Supervisor and
thereby committed an error. It was contended that:
"7. That, in reply to the statement made in para 13 of
the writ petition I state that in page 97 of ROP Rules 1988
may be seen that the pay scale of Sl. No.7 Wireless
Operator (ASI) is Rs.430-850 and the pay scale of Sl. 2
Supervisor Gr-II (S.I.) is Rs.560-1300 under ROP 1982,
which has been shown below "Present Scale" in the Table.
Subsequently, the pay scale of Sl. No.7 Wireless
Operator (ASI) was modified to Rs.560-1300 but at the
same time, the post of Sl.2 Supervisor Gr-II (S.I.) was also
re-designated as Supervisor (S.I.) and the pay scale of
Supervisor (S.I.) was modified to Rs.600-1440 under ROP
1982, which has been shown below "Modified Present
Scale" in the Table.
So, when the pay scale of Wireless Operator
(ASI) was Rs.430-850/-, the pay scale of Supervisor Gr-
II (S.I.) was Rs.560-1300/-. And when the pay scale of
Wireless Operator (ASI) was modified to Rs.560-1300/-,
the pay scale of Supervisor Gr-II (S.I.) was modified to
Rs.600-1440/-. Therefore, the pay scale of Wireless
Operator (which is of the level of ASI) is never equal to
the pay scale of Supervisor (which is of the level of
S.I.)."
6. The respondents further contended that the pre-revised scales
under ROP, 1988 such as, Rs.1300-3220/- and Rs.1450-3710/- ceased to
exist after implementation of ROP, 1999 and instead the corresponding
revised scales of Rs.4200-8650/- and Rs.5000-10,300/- were brought into
existence. It was contended that the concept of movement to next higher pay
scale attached to the promotional post ceased to exist w.e.f. 01.01.1996 upon
implementation of ROP, 1999. Under ROP, 1999 under which by way of
financial upgradation an employee is entitled to move to next higher scale
and not the scale prescribed for next promotional post. In this context, the
respondents relied on Rule 10 of ROP, 1999.
7. The learned Single Judge allowed the petitions in part. The
petitioners‟ request for grant of three upgradations was not accepted. It was
held that since the petitioners fell in the revised scale Nos.5 to 11, they were
entitled to two scale advancements and not three. These scale advancements
would be available at the end of 10 and 7 years of continuous satisfactory
service in the same scale without promotion. The learned Judge did not
proceed on the dichotomy of the pay scales between the posts of Wireless
Operators and Radio Technicians and the promotional post of Supervisor at
the time of and after introduction of the ROP, 1988. In the context of the
contention of the Government that no such dichotomy existed, the learned
Single Judge observed as under:
"28. This court is constrained to observe that in the
entire writ petition, the petitioners have not made such
claim. On the contrary, the petitioners have stated that the
post of ASI and SI are in two different levels. SI is the
promotional post for the category of post belonging to ASI.
They have contended that the pre-revised scale of Rs.1250-
2890, Rs.1300-3200/- and 1450-3710/- or Rs. 1700-3980/-
under ROP Rules 1988 has ceased to exist after
implementation of ROP Rules, 1999. Instead, the
corresponding revised pay scales of Rs.4000-7890/- from
Rs.1250-2890/-, Rs. 4200-8650/- from Rs.1300- 3220,
Rs.5000-10300 from Rs.1450-3710, Rs.5000-10,700/- from
Rs.1450-3710/- and Rs.5500-10,700/- from Rs.1700-3980/-
have come in force."
8. The primary prayer of the petitioners for being placed in the
revised scale of Rs.5000-10,300/- upon completion of 10 years of service in
the grade which was corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.1450-
3710/- was granted on the ground that after 10 years of service admittedly
the petitioners would move to pre-revised scale of Rs.1300-3220/- which
was the very scale which was modified and enhanced by memoranda dated
07.11.1992 to Rs.1450-3710/- and by virtue of the judgment of the Gauhati
High Court in case of Tarun Chandra Dey (supra) this change stood
effective from 01.01.1986.
9. Appearing for the Government learned Addl. Government
Advocate Mr. Mangal Debbarma submitted that the learned Single Judge
has committed an error. The pay scales of the Wireless Operators and Radio
Technicians were always separate and distinct from those of the promotional
post of Supervisor. Any modification in the pay scales of the promotional
post can have no effect in the pay fixation of the petitioners even upon grant
of benefits of career advancement. He submitted that under ROP, 1999 by
way of benefit of CAS the pay of an employee would be fixed in next higher
grade and not in the next promotional post.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta)
appearing for the original petitioners supported the judgment. She
highlighted what according to her was an error of interpretation by the
appointing authority while granting the benefit of CAS-I. According to her,
if the interpretation of the Government is accepted, there would remain no
difference in scale of pay of the feeder posts and the promotional posts
under ROP, 1988. She referred to F.R. 22(a)(i) in support of her contentions.
She placed heavy reliance on the decision of Gauhati High Court in case of
Tarun Chandra Dey (supra). She also referred to Rule 4 of ROP, 1999 and
in particular further proviso to the said rule which reads as under:
"Provided further that the Government employee
who holds one or more post in officiating or temporary
basis as on 01.01.1996, he will also submit an option
electing to draw the revised scale of substantive post on
reversion to the substantive post either on 01.01.1996 or on
next date of increment between 01.01.1996 and 31.12.1996
both days, inclusive."
11. In addition to the decision in case of Tarun Chandra Dey
(supra) of Gauhati High Court, learned counsel referred to several orders and
judgments of this Court. However, detailed reference to these orders and
judgments would not be necessary since they all pertain to the cases of
Supervisors/Sub-Inspectors who had placed reliance on the decision of
Gauhati High Court in case of Tarun Chandra Dey (supra) for grant of the
benefit of higher pay scale.
12. At the outset, we may clear the confusion with respect to
possible inconsistency or incongruity in the pay scales of Wireless Operators
and Radio Technicians vis-à-vis those of Supervisors at the time of and upon
introduction of ROP, 1988. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the
said rules which provides the existing, modified and revised pay scales.
Perusal of the said data would show that at the time of introduction of the
said rules the post of Supervisor Grade-I and Supervisor Grade-II both
carried the pre-revised scale of Rs.560-1300/-. The post of Supervisor
Grade-I was re-designated as Selection Grade Supervisor and a modified
scale of selection grade which would be admissible after 10 years of service
in the grade subject to fitness of Rs.600-1440/- was prescribed whereas there
was no change of pre-revised pay scale for the post of Supervisor Grade-II.
The scale of Rs.600-1440/- was revised to Rs.1450-3710/- and the scale of
Rs.560-1300/- was revised to Rs.1300-3220/-.
13. In comparison, in case of Radio Technicians and Wireless
Operators the pre-revised scale was Rs.430-850/-. The post was re-
designated as Selection Grade Radio Technicians and Ordinary Radio
Technicians. The modified scale prescribed for Selection Grade Radio
Technician was Rs.560-1300/-. Again this selection grade would be
admissible upon completion of 10 years of service in the grade subject to
fitness. Under ROP, 1988 the revised scale for Rs.560-1300/- was Rs.1300-
3220/- and Rs.430-850/- was revised to Rs.1250-2890/-.
14. It can thus be seen that a Radio Technician or a Wireless
Operator would be placed in the modified scale of Rs.560-1300/- only upon
completion of 10 years of service by way of a selection grade whereas a
Supervisor carried the entry scale of Rs.560-1300/-. The selection grade for
Supervisor was Rs.600-1440/- which was prescribed by way of a modified
scale. The petitioners are thus in error in comparing the modified scale of
Radio Technicians/Wireless Operators which was prescribed by way of a
selection grade which would be available after completion of 10 years of
service with the entry level scale prescribed for the post of Supervisor, in the
process completely ignoring the fact that for Supervisor selection grade upon
completion of 10 years was higher grade of Rs.600-1440/-. This distinction
and difference in pay scales continued upon implementation of ROP 1999
since the scale of Rs.560-1300/- was revised to Rs.1300-3220/- and the scale
of Rs.600-1440/- was revised to Rs.1450-3710/-. If the Government,
therefore, placed the petitioners in the scale of Rs.4200-8650/- upon
completion of 10 years of service which corresponded to pre-revised scale
of Rs.1300-3220/-, per se there was nothing wrong in such pay fixation.
15. The angle adopted by the learned Single Judge for granting the
relief to the petitioners, however, needs to be considered. We may recall, the
logic applied by the learned Single Judge for granting the relief was that by
office memorandum dated 07.11.1992 and by virtue of the judgment of
Gauhati High Court in case of Tarun Chandra Dey (supra) the pay scale of
Rs.1300-3220/- stood modified to Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
Applying the logic that upon completion of 10 years of service the
petitioners would have moved to the pre-revised scale of Rs.1300-3220/-, it
was felt that their fitment in the revised scale should be corresponding to the
pre-revised scale of Rs.1450-3710/-. According to the learned Single Judge
the scale of Rs.1300-3220/- was modified and enhanced to Rs.1450-3710/-.
16. In our opinion, there is a legal error in the process of adopting
this logic. Though copies of O.M.s dated 7.11.1992 and 21.9.1995 are not on
record, learned Addl. G.A. has provided copies thereof to us at our request
which we have perused. Under the office memorandum dated 07.11.1992
the scale of pay for the Selection Grade Supervisors was revised to Rs.1450-
3710/- with effect from 1.11.1992. Under O.M. dated 21.9.1995 it was
further provided that such higher scales shall be treated as the initial scales
for the said post. As noted, the Gauhati High Court noted that the Sub-
Inspectors who were the plaintiffs before the Court were already by then
placed in the revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale of
Rs.1700-3980/-. Inter alia, on such basis it was held that such modification
in the scale of pay in case of Sub-Inspectors brought about by the
Government under office memoranda dated 07.11.1992 and 21.9.1995
would be effective from 01.01.1986.
17. What, therefore, happened by virtue of the office memoranda
and the decision of Gauhati High Court was substitution of the scale of pay
of Rs.1300-3220/- to Rs.1450-3710/- for the post of Supervisor w.e.f.
1.1.19086. There was no such substitution either intended or ever granted by
the Government or by the Gauhati High Court for the post of Wireless
Operators/Radio Technicians. The pay scales remained the same which, as
per ROP, 1988, provided that entry level scale for the said post would be
Rs.1250-2890/- and the selection grade which would be available after
completion of 10 years of service would be Rs.1300-3220/-. The
Government, therefore, correctly placed the petitioners in the scale of
Rs.4200-8650/- which was revised scale under ROP, 1999 corresponding to
pre-revised scale of Rs.1300-3220/- under ROP, 1988 after 10 years of
service. Firstly, contrary to what was observed by the learned Single Judge
the pre-revised scale of Rs.1300-3220/- was not modified to Rs.1450-3710/-
for universal purpose. What was done by the office memorandum dated
07.11.1992 was to modify and enhance the pay scale of the Supervisors
(Selection Grade) from Rs.1300-3220/- to Rs.1450-3710/-. Subsequently,
under O.M. dated 21.9.1995 this was made the entry level scale for the post
in question. This modification and enhancement thus had a localized effect
and did not have the effect of substituting the scale of pay of Rs.1300-3220/-
to Rs.1450-3710/- wherever it appeared for any post whatsoever. Secondly,
granting this benefit to the petitioners and directing the Government to refix
their pay in the revised scale corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.1450-
3710/- would amount to granting benefit of pay fixation in the promotional
post by way of career advancement. As correctly pointed out by the
Government under ROP, 1999 the concept of fixation of pay in the next
promotional post by way of Assured Career Progression was substituted by
fixing the pay of the employee to the next higher scale by way of career
advancement. In this context, we may refer to Rule 10 of ROP, 1999 which
pertains to Career Advancement Scheme (Modified). The preamble of this
rule reads as under:
"The State Government employees will have scale
advancement by way of promotion, failing which by time
bound movement in a higher scale as per table in Annexure
„A‟ after entry into service in the whole service life in the
following manner.................."
Thus, under this scheme, an employee would get the benefit of
movement in higher scale as prescribed and not the movement in next
promotional scale. This distinction between scale advancement in the higher
scale and not in the promotional scale also comes out in the proviso (vii) to
the said rule which reads as under:
"(vii) By way of scale advancement in this scheme,
the CAS scale can not exceed the promotion scale.
(However, CAS scale can become same as promotion
scale.) In such cases, the scale advancement will not take
place at the prescribed period till actual promotion is done.
However, on completion of the prescribed period in this
scheme, he will earn an increment on 1.1.99 or later if any
advancement is due. The earning of increment will be
counted as an advancement of scale. This restriction will
not be applicable to existing Group-D employees."
18. In a recent decision in case of Union of India and others vrs.
M.V. Mohanan Nair reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421 the Supreme Court
discussed this major shift in the Government policy from previous Assured
Career Progression Schemes which have been replaced by Modified Career
Advancement or Career Progression Schemes. Following observations may
be noted:
"29. As pointed out earlier, both ACP and MACP
Schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes devised
with the object of ensuring that the employees who are
unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get
some relief from stagnation in the form of financial
benefits. Under the MACP Scheme, financial upgradations
are granted at three regular intervals on completion of 10-
20-30 years of service without promotion. Hence, it is also
intended to ensure that the employees are adequately
incentivised to work efficiently despite not getting
promotion for want of promotional avenue. The change in
policy brought about by supersession of the ACP Scheme
with the MACP Scheme is after well-deliberated and well-
documented recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission. Considering the various issues in the
implementation of the ACP Scheme, the Pay Commission
expressed its views "the only other way is to bring
systematic changes in the existing Scheme of ACP so that
all the employees irrespective of the existing hierarchy
structure in their organisations/cadres, get some benefit
under it". The Commission therefore, recommended that
the existing Scheme of ACP be continued with the
modifications indicated thereon in the Report that the
financial upgradation has to be in the next immediate
Grade Pay. One of the reasons for the expert body
recommending the MACP Scheme was that there were
inter- departmental disparities where several
departments had varying promotional hierarchies. As a
result, the working of ACP Scheme under which an
employee who stagnated for 12 years, was entitled to
pay in the Pay Scale of the next promotional post, led to
inter-departmental anomalies. The Pay Commission
therefore, recommended MACP Scheme with a view to
putting an end to the problem ensuing from inter-
departmental disparities.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
31. The object behind the MACP Scheme is to
provide relief against the stagnation. If the arguments of the
respondents are to be accepted, they would be entitled to be
paid in accordance with the grade pay offered to a
promotee; but yet not assume the responsibilities of a
promotee. As submitted on behalf of Union of India, if the
employees are entitled to enjoy Grade Pay in the next
promotional hierarchy, without the commensurate
responsibilities as a matter of routine, it would have an
adverse impact on the efficiency of administration.
32. The change in policy brought about by
supersession of ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is
after consideration of all the disparities and the
representations of the employees. The Sixth Central Pay
Commission is an expert body which has comprehensively
examined all the issues and the representations as also the
issue of stagnation and at the same time to promote
efficiency in the functioning of the departments. MACP
Scheme has been introduced on the recommendation of the
Sixth Central Pay Commission which has been accepted by
the Government of India. After accepting the
recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission,
the ACP Scheme was withdrawn and the same was
superseded by the MACP Scheme with effect from
01.09.2008. This is not some random exercise which is
unilaterally done by the Government, rather, it is based
on the opinion of the expert body - Sixth Central Pay
Commission which has examined all the issues, various
representations and disparities. Before making the
recommendation for the Pay Scale/Revised Pay Scale,
the Pay Commission takes into consideration the
existing pay structure, the representations of the
government servants and various other factors after
which the recommendations are made. When the expert
body like Pay Commission has comprehensively
examined all the issues and representations and also
took note of inter-departmental disparities owing to
varying promotional hierarchies, the court should not
interfere with the recommendations of the expert body.
When the government has accepted the
recommendation of the Pay Commission and has also
implemented those, any interference by the court would
have a serious impact on the public exchequer."
19. In the result, we do not think that the Government had
committed any error in fixing the pay of the petitioners upon completion of
10 and 17 years of service. The learned Single Judge committed an error in
enlarging the benefits already granted by the Government. Appeals are
allowed. Judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
20. All appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
