Delhi High Court
Surya Pal Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 February, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 28.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5665/2022
SURYA PAL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Alok Shanker Pandey with
Mr. Avi Pandey, Ms. Jagriti
Pandey, Advocates with
Petitioners - S.P. Singh and
Dinesh Chandra.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Ms. Ira Singh, Mr. Aryan
Dhaka & Ms. Nandini
Aggarwal, Advocates for R-1,
2, 3, 4, 13.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi (hereinafter ‘CAT’), whereby the O.A. No. 2501 of 2019,
preferred by the Petitioners/Officers seeking benefit of financial
upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression
(‘MACP’) Scheme with effect from 01.01.2006, came to be
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 1 of 17
17:07:39
2. The quintessential facets governing the present dispute are that
the Petitioners are former officers of the Intelligence Bureau (‘IB’),
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. They retired as
Gorup ‘A’ Officers between January 2006 and September 2008.
3. The Petitioners were governed, during their service tenure, by
the Assured Career Progression (‘ACP’) Scheme introduced in the
year 1999, which provided for two financial upgradations on
completion of 12 and 24 years of regular service in the absence of
promotion.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission vide report dated
24.03.2008, the Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure,
Government of India, issued a Resolution dated 29.08.2008, revising
the pay structure of Central Government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006,
and contemplated the introduction of the MACP Scheme in
supersession of the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
5. Thereafter, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (‘DoP&T’) issued
Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 formally introducing and
operationalising the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008.
6. However, the Petitioners, though were in service on 01.01.2006
but having retired prior to 01.09.2008, were not granted the benefits of
3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Aggrieved
thereby, the Petitioners submitted various representations claiming
that the MACP Scheme ought to be applied retrospectively from
01.01.2006, when they were in service.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 2 of 17
17:07:39
7. Upon rejection of their representations, the Petitioners
approached the learned CAT and vide the impugned order dated
14.07.2021, their Original Application was dismissed holding that it
has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the MACP
Scheme was applicable only from 01.09.2008 and since the Petitioners
have retired prior thereto, they would not be entitled to any benefit
under the said Scheme.
8. The impugned order was assailed by the Petitioners, by way of
an SLP No. 20883/2021 titled Surya Pal Singh and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors., before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was dismissed
vide order dated 03.01.2022 as under: –
” ORDER
1. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave
Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. Application for substitution stands disposed of.”
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition Dairy No.27888/2021 filed by
the Petitioners under Article 32 before the Hon’ble Apex Court was
withdrawn, as recorded in order dated 14.02.2022.
10. The Petitioners, thereafter, have approached this Court by way
of the present petition.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the
learned CAT had failed to appreciate that the Resolution dated
29.08.2008 of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure)
accepted the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and
provided that the revised pay structure, including financial
upgradations under the MACP Scheme would be effective from
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 3 of 17
17:07:39
01.01.2006. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon Union of India
v. Balbir Singh Turn and Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 99.
12. It is further submitted that the MACP Scheme forms an integral
part of the revised pay structure and, therefore, ought to be given
effect from 01.01.2006. According to the Petitioners, the DoP&T
Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, which operationalised the
MACP Scheme from 01.09.2008, could not override or curtail the
effect of the Cabinet-approved Resolution dated 29.08.2008.
13. It is further submitted that denial of MACP benefits to the
Petitioners, who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008, is
arbitrary as they had completed 30 years of service much before
01.09.2008 and are entitled to 3rd financial upgradation as per the
MACP Scheme.
14. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order and the DoP&T
OM No. 35034/3/2008/Estt (D) dated 19.05.2009 operationalising the
MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 be set aside and the Respondent
Authorities be directed to grant the Petitioners the 3rd Financial
Upgradation under MACP scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that
the issue regarding the effective date of the MACP Scheme and ante
dating the MACP Scheme is no longer res integra and stands
conclusively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been
held that the MACP Scheme is an incentive scheme and a condition of
service, distinct from pay revision, and has been consciously made
operative prospectively with effect from 01.09.2008. To buttress the
same, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 4 of 17
17:07:39
Court in Union of India v. R.K. Sharma & Ors. , (2021) 5 SCC 579
and Union of India v. Virender Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1058
wherein it has been categorically held that the benefit of financial
upgradation under the MACP Scheme cannot be claimed from
01.01.2006.
16. It is further submitted that DoP&T OM dated 13.07.2021, as
per the judgment of R.K. Sharma (supra), has further clarified that
benefits under MACP Scheme cannot be claimed w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
17. It is further submitted that since the Petitioners have retired
prior to 01.09.2008 (except Petitioner No. 35/Lt. K.C. Mittal, who has
already availed the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f.
01.09.2008) and now cannot seek any benefit of any financial
upgradation under the MACP by claiming it’s implementation from
01.01.2006.
18. Accordingly, it is prayed that there is no ground to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the he learned CAT and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. Submissions heard and the material placed on record along with
the judgments relied upon have been perused.
Analysis
20. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is apposite to
mention that the SLP preferred by the Petitioners herein, assailing the
same impugned order, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
without recording any express liberty to approach this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 5 of 17
17:07:39
21. Be that as it may, the impugned order clearly indicates that all
the grounds raised before this Court as well as the judgments relied
upon by the Petitioners were duly considered.
22. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the nature of the MACP
Scheme. The MACP Scheme was introduced as a replacement of the
ACP Scheme with the object of mitigating stagnation by granting
financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular
service in the absence of promotion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
consistently held that the MACP Scheme is an incentive scheme and a
condition of service, and not a component of the pay structure itself.
23. The Resolution dated 29.08.2008 revised the pay bands and
grade pay with notional effect from 01.01.2006. However, the
Resolution merely contemplated the introduction of the MACP
Scheme and the MACP Scheme was formally operationalised only by
the DoP&T OM dated 19.05.2009, which explicitly stipulated that the
Scheme would be effective from 01.09.2008. The Resolution dated
29.08.2008, insofar as it is relevant to the present case, reads as under:
“(VII) Three upgradations shall be granted under the
Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme at 10, 20
and 30 years asper the Modified ACP Scheme
recommended by the Commission. The ACP Scheme
shall also be applicable to Group ‘A’ employees.
XXX XXX XXX
2. The Commission’s recommendations and the
Government decision thereon with regard to the
revised scales of pay and dearness allowance of
civilian employees of the Central Government and
personnel of All India Services, as detailed in Part ‘A’
of Annexure-l, shall be made effective from the Ist day
of January, 2006.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 6 of 17
17:07:39
3. The revised allowances other than dearness
allowance shall be made effective from the Ist day of
September 2008.
XXX XXX XXX
(IV) The scheme shall be called the Modified ACP
Scheme and shall ensure suitable career progression
uniformly to all the employees of the Central
Government. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that the
effective date of 01.01.2006 has been expressly confined to revised
pay scales and dearness allowance only. The Resolution itself draws a
clear distinction between pay and dearness allowance on the one hand,
and other allowances and benefits on the other.
25. Hence, the Petitioners could seek financial upgradation under
the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.01.2006 only if it is included
within the revised pay scales or dearness allowance, and is forming
part of the pay structure. If not, then consequently, such upgradation
would be governed by the general clause prescribing 01.09.2008 as
the effective date.
26. The distinction between the effective date of financial
upgradation and the operational date of the MACP Scheme has been
repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
27. At this juncture, it is apposite to advert to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh Turn (supra), wherein the
view was taken by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal that financial
upgradation under the MACP Scheme formed part of the pay
structure and, therefore, ought to be given effect from 01.01.2006 in
terms of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 accepting the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 7 of 17
17:07:39
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. The Hon’ble
Apex Court upheld the above reasoning, proceeding on the premise
that ACP/MACP benefits directly impacted pay and pension, rejected
the contention of the Union of India that the ACP Scheme continued
to operate till 31.08.2008 and that the MACP Scheme could only
operate prospectively.
28. Relying upon Balbir Singh Turn (supra), the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh, vide order dated 03.04.2018 passed in Writ
Petition No. 22214 of 2011 titled M. Hara Bhupal Vs Union of India
& Ors, granted benefit of 3rd financial upgradation, to the Petitioner
therein, under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, the
question whether MACP forms part of the revised pay structure so as
to attract the effective date of 01.01.2006 was not conclusively
adjudicated.
29. Pertinently, the said reasoning in Balbir Singh Turn (supra) has
subsequently been examined in depth by a larger Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and has been held to be inconsistent with the
true nature of the MACP Scheme as an incentive-based condition of
service, distinct from revision of pay scales.
30. In Union of India and ors. vs. M. V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5
SCC 421 and R.K. Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered the previous ruling of Balbir Singh Turn (supra) and held
that both the MACP and ACP are in the nature of incentives and not
part of the pay structure and it was settled that the benefit of revised
allowances, other than scales of pay and DA, which included financialSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 8 of 17
17:07:39
upgradation under the MACP Scheme, would be effective from
01.09.2008. The relevant extract of R.K. Sharma (supra) is
reproduced as under: –
” 9. For a better understanding of the dispute in these
cases, it is necessary to examine the judgments of this
Court in Balbir Singh Turn [Union of India v. Balbir
Singh Turn, (2018) 11 SCC 99 : (2018) 1 SCC
(L&S) 866] and M.V. Mohanan Nair [Union of
India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 :
(2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] . The point that was
considered by this Court in Balbir Singh Turn [Union
of India v. Balbir Singh Turn, (2018) 11 SCC 99 :
(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 866] relates to the applicability
of the benefit of MACPS from 1-1-2006. The
respondents therein approached the Armed Forces
Tribunal which held [Balbir Singh v. Union of India,
2014 SCC OnLine AFT 1128] that the benefit of ACP
granted to an employee is part of the pay structure
which affects the pay and also his pension. The
Armed Forces Tribunal held that an ACP is not an
allowance but a part of pay and therefore, in terms of
the government resolution, the employees were
entitled for MACP with effect from 1-1-2006. This
Court in Balbir Singh Turn [Union of
India v. Balbir Singh Turn, (2018) 11 SCC 99 :
(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 866] upheld the said finding
recorded by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Instructions
issued on 30-5-2011 were found to be contrary to the
Resolution dated 30-8-2008 as, according to the
resolution 1-1-2006 was the effective date for
implementation of MACPS in matters relating to pay
and dearness allowance.
10. In M.V. Mohanan Nair [Union of India v. M.V.
Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 : (2020) 2 SCC
(L&S) 1] 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 9 of 17
17:07:39
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 [Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan
Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] , 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 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 [Union
of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 :
(2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] 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 1-1-2006 according to the
Resolution dated 29-8-2008. Moreover, the
implementation of MACPS by granting financial
upgradation 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 10 of 17
17:07:39
31. Hence, in view of the above, the OM no. 35034/ 3/ 2015-ESTT
(D) dated 13.07.2021 was issued by DOP&T, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, which clarified
as under: –
” OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: – Cases pending or decided by Hon’ble High
Courts/Central Administrative Tribunals regarding
preponement of effective date of Modified Assured
Career Progression Scheme-Order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of lndia dated 28.4.2021 in CA No.
1579/21 (SLP (C) No. 15572/2019) of Union of India
v/s R.K. Sharma & others – reg.
The undersigned is directed to say that vide
O.M. of even number dated 30.9.2020, Ministries/
Departments were advised to defend all cases or
challenge the Orders of Court/Tribunal, as the case
may be, which are contrary to Modified Assured
Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) guidelines, since
the matter relating to preponing the date of effect of
the MACPS from 1.9.2008 (as provided in the
scheme) to 1.1.2006, was sub-judice in a number of
cases pending in the Apex Court, which have been
tagged with SLP No. 10811-13/2018 of Uol v/s Ranjit
Samuel, and that all similar matters were being heard
together.
2. Though decision in the above mentioned
cases is still awaited, the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court of
India, in a related matter, has held that benefits under
the MACPS cannot be claimed w.e.f. 1.1.2006. In its
Order dated 28.4.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 1579/2021
[arising out of SLP (C) No. 15572/20 19] of Union of
India v/s R.K. Sham1a & Others, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:-
Xxx xxx xxx
3. Accordingly, in terms of the existing
MACP guidelines, and in light of abovementioned
order dated 28.4.2021, all Ministries/Departments are,
therefore, advised to dispose of all pending grievances
seeking grant of benefit w.e.f. 1.1.2006 under the
MACP Scheme, and also to defend the various pending
Court Cases or to take immediate suitable action for
appealing against such judgments which are contrary
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 11 of 17
17:07:39
to the existing policy, as upheld by the Hon ‘ble Apex
Court in the instant case.”
(Emphasis supplied)
32. The issue of the date of implementation was further
conclusively settled in Virender Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, after discussing the above precedents, categorically
held that MACP Scheme is applicable with effect from 01.09.2008.
The relevant extract is reproduced as under: –
” 11. As rightly held in R.K. Sharma (supra), the
aforesaid reasoning given in the case of Balbir
Singh Turn (supra), in our opinion, has not been
accepted by the three Judge Bench decision in the
case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), which in clear
terms holds grant of financial upgradation under the
MACP Scheme is not a matter of pay structure, but an
incentive scheme brought into force to relieve
stagnation which operates on its own terms. We may
add that the pay scales are fixed and revised by the
rules which are enacted in exercise of powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5)
of Article 148 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, vide Notification dated 29th August 2008,
the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
were enacted vide G.S.R. No. 622(E). Rule 1(2) states
that the Rules, as enacted, shall be deemed to have
come into force on 1st January 2006. The aforesaid
Rules neither postulate nor have any provision for
grant of financial upgradation under the MACP
Scheme. It is to be further noted, and it is an accepted
position of both parties, that the MACP Scheme, as
implemented, postulates grant of financial
upgradation after 10, 20 and 30 years of regular
service and not after 8, 16 or 24 years of regular
service, as was originally envisaged in terms of
Government Resolution dated 30th August 2008, or for
that matter, 10 or 20 years of service, as was
recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
In our opinion, the Resolution of the Central
Government dated 30th August 2008 cannot be read
as conferring any right on the governmentSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 12 of 17
17:07:39
employees. The resolution was not notified and
enforced to confer a legal right.7 The Office
Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 promulgates and
operationalises the MACP Scheme with effect from
01.09.2008. The Office Memorandum states that
financial upgradations as per the provisions of the
earlier ACP Scheme would be granted till
30.08.2008. Further, past cases would not be re-
opened and the difference in pay scales on account of
grant of financial upgradation under the old ACP
Scheme and the MACP Scheme shall not be construed
as an anomaly.
12. Learned counsel for the government employees,
inspite of being correct that M.V. Mohanan
Nair (supra) does not refer to Balbir Singh
Turn (supra) and does not overrule it specifically,
misses the point that the entire ratio and reasoning
given in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), as rightly
observed in R.K. Sharma (supra), cannot be
reconciled with the ratio in Balbir Singh
Turn (supra). M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) has
examined the MACP Scheme in depth and detail to
settle the controversy, inter alia holding that
supersession of the ACP Scheme by the MACP
Scheme is a matter of government policy, and that
“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 1.9.2008.”8 The ACP
Scheme and MACP Schemes were held to be in the
nature of incentive schemes to relieve stagnation and
not as a part of pay structure, which had revised the
pay and the dearness allowance with effect from
1.1.2006. In these circumstances, we do not think a
case for reference to a larger Bench of three Judges
to reconsider the ratio in the decision of R.K.
Sharma (supra) is made out. Therefore, we reject the
contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents/government employees for reference of
the matter.
Xxx xxx xxx
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals
filed by the Union of India are partly allowed and
impugned judgments, to the extent they hold that theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 13 of 17
17:07:39
MACP Scheme applies with effect from 1.1.2006 and
that under the MACP Scheme the employees are
entitled to financial upgradation equivalent to the
next promotional post, are set aside. MACP Scheme
is applicable with effect from 1.9.2008 and as per the
MACP Scheme, the entitlement is to financial
upgradation equivalent to the immediate next grade
pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands as stated in
Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule to the Central
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. …..”
(Emphasis supplied)
33. A three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide
Judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1880 of 2022,
titled The Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. Narender
Kumar & Ors., has also expressly concurred with the principles laid
down in R.K. Sharma (supra) and M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), while
declining to place reliance on Balbir Singh Turn (supra). The Court
held that the financial upgradations would be as per the ACP Scheme
up to 31.08.2008, and financial upgradation is governed exclusively
by the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. The relevant
extract is reproduced herein below: –
“22. The MACP scheme, which replaced the ACP
scheme, with effect from 01-09-2008 (although the
scheme was introduced on 19.05.2009) was preceded
by the Sixth Central Pay Commission report dated
24-3-2008. That report dealt with the pay-structure,
allowances, conditions of services and retiral benefits
of Central Government employees, etc. By a
Resolution dated 29-8-2008, recommendations of the
Pay Commission concerning civilian employees were
accepted by the Central Government regarding
revised pay-scales and dearness allowances with
effect from 01-01-2006. As regards revised
allowances, (excluding dearness allowance), the
effective date designated by the memorandum is 1-9-
2008.
Xxx xxx xxx
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 14 of 17
17:07:39
27. It is therefore, quite clear that both Mohanan
Nair(supra) and R.K. Sharma(supra), examined the
MACP scheme; the latter, especially, ruled that the
scheme was operable from 01-09-2008, and that the
respondents “officers are not entitled to seek
implementation of the benefits of MACPS with
effect from 1-1-2006 according to the Resolution
dated 29-8-2008”. Having regard to this clearly
enunciated principle, which, in this court’s opinion,
stems from a correct reading of the scheme, the
reasoning of the High Court, that the MACP
scheme is operative not from 01-09-2008, but from
01-01-2006, is untenable. The mere circumstance
that the resolution of the Government which led to
adoption of the MACP also contained the effective
date for implementation of the pay-benefits of the Pay
Commission recommendations, did not obliterate the
fact that the date from which the scheme was to be
made effective, was another one.
28. The submissions of the DDA, that the executive
agency’s considerations, while extending a benefit
or new regime such as the promotion or career
advancement program, is to be effective, involves
decision making that is complex and nuanced, is
justified. The date of operation of new pay scales
cannot be per se the same when the operation of
another scheme (which may also involve pay benefits)
need not be the same. The shifting of dates (once
settled by the executive after due deliberations) may
seemingly have no consequences, but inevitably
would have radical financial implications. Given
these factors, it has been held, in previous decisions
that courts should in the absence of any facially
compelling reason disclosing arbitrariness desist
from stepping into the arena of decision making,
and avoid directing their reformulation or even
requiring such schemes to be administered from any
anterior period.
Xxx xxx xxx
31. Para 9 recognises the fact that if there is any
ambiguity in the interpretation of the MACP scheme
it would be resolved by the Department of Personnel
and Training. It also clarifies in the last sentence
that financial upgradation would be granted tillSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 15 of 17
17:07:39
31.08.2008 (given that the MACP scheme itself
became operative on 01.09.2008), although the office
memorandum was issued on 19.05.2009. In the
opinion of this Court the undue influence placed upon
the last sentence cannot be met much of by the
employees given that the ACP scheme itself ended
on 31.08.2008. This provision (i.e. Para 9) was made
to cater to the situations where the grant of ACP
benefits was under process, this would mean both
types of benefits i.e. the first and the second up-
gradation. Doubtlessly, the first up-gradation under
the ACP scheme was to be granted after 12 years. If
Para 9 were to be considered in the context of the
first upgradation it is a clarification to the effect that
the individual concerned who has crossed 12 years’
service (and therefore became eligible and whose
case is under active consideration) would get the
ACP benefits. However, this provision cannot be
understood as an independent transitional provision,
enabling all employees awaiting the up-gradation to
insist that the benefit of the ACP scheme should
indefinitely continue despite its ceasing to exist after
31.08.2008.”
(Emphasis supplied)
34. The aforesaid pronouncements leave no doubt that no
enforceable right accrues to an employee to claim MACP benefits
prior to 01.09.2008. The claim seeking financial upgradation under
the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.01.2006 cannot be sustained
as they do not form part of the pay structure or revised pay scales, and
such benefits can be implemented only from 01.09.2008.
35. Reliance placed on the judgment of Hara Bhupal (supra) is
misconceived and cannot be accepted as the same solely relied upon
the view taken in Balbir Singh Turn (supra), which has not been
endorsed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgments in
RK Sharma (supra), Virender Singh (supra) and Narender Kumar
(supra).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 16 of 17
17:07:39
36. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that the Petitioners
had all superannuated prior to 01.09.2008 (except Petitioner No.
35/Late K.C. Mittal who has been granted financial upgradation w.e.f.
01.09.2008). Consequently, they were not in service on the date on
which the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme
was implemented and their financial upgradation would have been
governed by the then existing ACP Scheme only.
37. It is also well settled that fiscal and service policy decisions
involving fixation of cut-off dates fall within the domain of the
executive and do not violate Articles 14 or 16 unless shown to be
manifestly arbitrary, which is not the case here.
38. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion reached
by the learned CAT that the Petitioners cannot claim financial
upgradation under the MACP Scheme from 01.01.2006.
39. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
40. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
jnv
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
W.P.(C) 5665/2022
Signing Date:25.02.2026 Page 17 of 17
17:07:39
