Delhi High Court – Orders
Ajay Kumar Singh vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla And Ors on 8 April, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 610/2021
AJAY KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Mr. Anushman
Mehrotra, Advs.
versus
SHRI AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SPC for
R-1 to 4.
Mrs. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar,
Ms. Joohu Kumari, Advs.
Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with Insp.
Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav,
CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 08.04.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petitions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 seeks the following prayers: –
“i. Pass an order issuing the contempt against the Respondents and
punish them in accordance with law for the contempt of the
judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 2610/2021; andii. Pass any such orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Vide judgment dated 25.02.2021 in W.P. (C) 2610/2021, learned
Division Bench of this Court had passed the following directions: –
“4. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have preferred
the present writ petition to primarily seek a mandamus to the
respondents to grant the benefit of the First and Second financial
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 22:09:12
upgradation under the ACP scheme with effect from completion of
12 years and 24 years and the third MACP on completion of 30
year of service. It is claimed that wherever the second Financial
upgradation is granted under the second MACP, the same hall be
granted in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of
Rs.4200 w.e.f. 01st January, 2006 and wherever 20 years have been
completed or the dates mentioned in the prayer clause along with
consequential benefits including arrears. The petitioners’ claim is
based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr., Civil Appeal
Diary No.3744/2016 along with other cases decided on 08th
December, 2017. The petitioners also place reliance on the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs.
Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C) No.3549/2018 decided on 01st
May, 2019, Jaswant Singh v. Union of India., WP(C) No. 22 of
2015 decided on 05.01.2015 as well as Jai Pal Singh v. Union of
India decided on 06.09.2013 in WP(C) No. 5539/2015 and Indian
Ex-Bordermen Movement and Ors v. Union of India and Ors.
decided on 03.02.2020 in WP(C) No. 7447/2019.
5. As admittedly there is no interim order passed by the
Supreme Court in any of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the
Union of India in similar matters, we dispose of the present writ
petition in similar terms as passed in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 i.e. a
direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ claim in the
light of the judgments in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh
Turn & Anr. (supra) and Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India
& Anr (supra), Union of India & Ors. vs. M. V. Mohanan Nair,
(2020) 5 SCC 421 as well as Jaswant Singh v. Union of India.,
WP(C) No. 22 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2015 as well as Jai Pal
Singh v. Union of India decided on 06.09.2013 in WP(C) No.
5539/2015 and Indian ExBordermen Movement and Ors v. Union
of India and Ors. decided on 03.02.2020 in WP(C) No. 7447/2019
and to dispose of the representations of the petitioners positively
within twelve weeks from today. It is clarified that in the event the
Supreme Court varies or set asides the order passed by the Division
Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr (supra)
and/or any other similar matter, then the present order shall abide
by the order( s) of the Apex Court.”
4. Reply affidavit dated 01.12.2021 has been filed on behalf of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 22:09:12
respondent Nos.1 to 4 in which it has been stated as under: –
“8. That it is pertinent to mention here that vide judgment/order
dated 05.03.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2016/2020 (arising
out of SLP(C) No.21803/2014) titled Union of India Vs M. V.
Mohanan Nair reported in (2020) 5 see 421 and other connected
appeals, a bench of 3 Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has allowed the appeal filed by UOI/Deptt and has held that as per
the prevailing Rules of MACP Scheme, financial upgradation is to
be granted to immediate next higher Grade Pay and not the Grade
Pay in the next promotional hierarchy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has also held as under:-
“56. The AGP 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.
The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be
set aside.”
True copy of the judgment dated 05.03.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court passed in Union of India Vs M. V. Mohanan Nair reported
in (2020) 5 SCO 421 and other connected appeals is annexed as
ANNEXURE R-1.
9. That it is further clear that the earlier AGP Scheme was
withdrawn w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and the same stood superseded by the
MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. Hence, the prayer of
petitioners for sanctioning of MACP benefits w.e.f. 01/01/2006 is
not at all tenable and not in accordance with the relevant rules on
the subject. Moreover, the ACP and MACP scheme cannot run
concurrently.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 22:09:12
10. That on the SLP/Civil Appeal filed by UOI/Deptt., the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while allowing the C.A. No. 1579/2021 (arising
from SLP (C) No. 15572/2019) titled Union of India Vs R.K.
Sharma and Others reported in (2021) 5 see 579 and other
connected appeals, vide judgment/order dated 28.04.2021, has
categorically held as under:-
“10. In MX Mohanan Nair a three-Judge Bench of this
Court considered the ACPS as well as the MACPS to hold
that the schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes which
were brought into force to relieve stagnation. This Court was
of the considered view that the respondents therein were
entitled only to the benefit of next grade pay in the pay band
and not to the benefit of grade pay of next promotional post.
As the MACPS is a matter of government policy pursuant to
the recommendations made by the Pay Commission, this
Court refused to accept submissions of the employees that
MACPS should be made applicable with effect from 1-1-
2006.
11. In view of the judgment of this Court in M.V.
Mohanan Nair, the respondents and other similarly situated
employees are entitled for financial upgradation under
MACPS only to the next grade pay and not to the grade pay
of a next promotional post. It is clear from the Resolution
dated 30-8-2008 that the recommendation of the 6th Pay
Commission was accepted by the Government and was made
effective from 1-1- 2006 in respect of civilian employees with
regard to revised scales of pay and dearness allowances.
Insofar as the revised allowances other than dearness
allowance, recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission
were given effect from 1-9- 2008. The judgment in M.V.
Mohanan Nair clinches the issue. Benefits flowing from ACP
and MACP Schemes are incentives and are not part of pay.
The Resolution dated 29-8-2008 is made effective from 1-9-
2008 for implementation of allowances other than pay and
DA which includes financial upgradation under ACP and
MACP Schemes. Therefore, the respondents and other
similarly situated officers are not entitled to seek
implementation of the benefits of MACPS with effect from 1-This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 22:09:12
1-2006 according to the Resolution dated 29-8-2008.
Moreover, the implementation of MACPs by granting
financial upgrdation only to the next grade pay in the pay band
and not granting pay of the next promotional post with effect
from 1-1-2006 would be detrimental to a large number of
employees, particularly those who have retired. We find force
in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor
General that uniform implementation of MACPS for civilian
employees with effect from 1-1-2006 would result in large-
scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess.
12. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment of
the High Court and allow these appeals.
Civil Appeals Has. 1592 of 2021 [arising out of SLP (C) No.
12033 of 2020], 1597 of 2021 [arising out of SLP (C) No.
12640 of 2020], 1600 of 2021 [arising out of SLP (C) No.
15772 of 2020], 1603~609 of2021 [arising out of SLPs (C)
Nos. 913-19 of 2021], 1599 of 2021 [arising out of SLP (C)
No. 15150 of2020].”
True copy of the judgment dated 28.04.2021 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court passed in Union of India Vs R.K. Sharma and Ors. reported
in (2021) 5 SCC 579 and other connected appeals is annexed as
ANNIEXURE R-2.
xxx xxx xxx
12. That from the above, it can be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has also squarely denied to interfere in the recommendations
/ policy matters of expert body i.e. pay commission which is
applicable to the present case also as the petitioner in his writ
petition has in effect sought to reopen the recommendations/policy
matters of same expert body of Pay Commission despite their
pension has been revised according to the provisions of pay
commission/DoP&T and GoI orders.
xxx xxx xxx
14. That vide judgment/order dated 25.02.2021, this Hon’ble Court
has clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set asides
the order passed by the Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 22:09:12
Union of India & Anr (supra) and/or any other similar matter, then
the present order shall abide by the order(s) of the Apex Court. It is
submitted that the case of petitioner herein is covered by judgment
and order dated 28.04.2021 passed in R.K. Sharma case (supra) by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby it is held that MACP scheme
shall be applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2008 instated of 01.01.2006 and has
set aside the orders passed by this Hon’ble Delhi High Court.”
5. As noted hereinabove, learned Division Bench while passing the
directions had categorically clarified that in the event the Supreme Court
varies or set aside the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Sunil
Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (supra) and/or any other similar
matter, then the said order passed by learned Division Bench shall abide by
such order(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits
that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair
(supra) was rendered in similar situation, and in view of the same, he seeks
leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to initiate appropriate
proceedings as available in law before the Court of competent
jurisdiction/appropriate forum.
7. Leave and liberty granted.
8. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
APRIL 8, 2026/kr
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 22:09:12