2020 (3) TMI 1393 - SC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside orders, directs review of MACP Scheme anomalies. Expert body decisions not easily reviewed.

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus M.V. Mohanan Nair

The court set aside all impugned orders in a batch of appeals, allowing appeals by the Union of India. It directed the Union of India and DoP & T to ... Grant of Financial upgradation of grade pay in the next promotional hierarchy - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Whether MACP scheme entitles financial upgradation of pay to the next grade pay or to the grade pay of the next promotional post as envisaged under the ACP scheme? - Whether MACP Scheme envisages grant of financial upgradation in Grade Pay Hierarchy and not in promotional hierarchy? - As contended by the Respondents, whether MACP scheme is disadvantageous to the employees in comparison to ACP scheme as long as the financial upgradation is granted in hierarchy of grade pay under MACP scheme? - HELD THAT:- 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 After accepting the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the ACP Scheme was withdrawn and the same was superseded by the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008 - When the expert body like Pay Commission has comprehensively examined all the issues and representations and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. The prescription of Pay Scales and incentives are matters where decision is taken by the Government based upon the recommendation of the expert bodies like Pay Commission and several relevant factors including financial implication and court cannot substitute its views - In the present batch of cases where the Respondents are claiming financial upgradation in the grade pay of promotional hierarchy, no grounds are made out to show that the MACP Scheme granting financial upgradation in the next grade pay is arbitrary and unjust; warranting interference. The implementation of the MACP Scheme is claimed to have led to certain anomalies; but as pointed out earlier, MACP Scheme itself is not under challenge. 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 Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, 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's case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether MACP scheme entitles financial upgradation to the next grade pay or to the grade pay of the next promotional post as envisaged under the ACP scheme.2. Whether MACP scheme is disadvantageous to the employees in comparison to ACP scheme as long as the financial upgradation is granted in hierarchy of grade pay under MACP scheme.3. Whether Respondents are entitled to stepping up of their grade pay to be at par with grade pay of their juniors who were getting the higher grade pay on account of implementation of MACP Scheme.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Financial Upgradation under MACP SchemeThe main question is whether the MACP scheme entitles financial upgradation to the next grade pay or to the grade pay of the next promotional post as envisaged under the ACP scheme. The court noted that the MACP Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay. The term 'Grade Pay in the next promotional post' is absent in the MACP Scheme. The court rejected the argument that the benefit of MACP Scheme is referable to the promotional post, stating that such an interpretation is de hors the MACP Scheme.Issue 2: Comparison between MACP and ACP SchemesThe court examined whether the MACP scheme is disadvantageous to employees compared to the ACP scheme. The MACP scheme was introduced to rectify disparities within employees in different organizations who received different financial upgradations due to varying promotional hierarchies. The MACP Scheme provides three financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years, whereas the ACP Scheme provided two financial upgradations at 12 and 24 years. The court emphasized that the MACP Scheme, recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the Government, aims to ensure uniform benefits across different departments.Issue 3: Stepping Up of Grade PayThe court ordered that appeals relating to the issue of stepping up grade pay to be at par with juniors be de-tagged and listed separately. The court did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue within this judgment.Discussion on Raj Pal’s CaseThe court noted that various High Courts relied on Raj Pal's case, where the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP due to delay in refiling, not on merits. The court clarified that Raj Pal's case should not be considered a binding precedent as it was dismissed on technical grounds. The court emphasized that decisions of expert bodies like the Pay Commission are not ordinarily subject to judicial review and should not be interfered with unless they are arbitrary or unjust.ConclusionThe court set aside all the impugned orders in the batch of appeals, allowing the appeals preferred by the Union of India. The court also directed the Union of India and DoP & T to consider the anomalies in the MACP Scheme as noted in various Joint Committee meetings and take appropriate decisions in accordance with law. The court appreciated the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae.