Entitlement to ACP/MACP Benefits Determined by Hierarchical Pay Scales of Higher Cadre Posts.

The petitioners, retired employees holding the post of Labour Enforcement Officers, challenged Office Order No. 7 dated 22.04.2019 issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner.

This order rejected their claims for financial upgrades under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes in the pay scales of Labour Superintendent and Assistant Labour Commissioner.

The respondents argued that under Clause 3(iii) of Resolution No. 5207 (dated 14.08.2002), the post of Labour Superintendent was not part of the prescribed hierarchical cadre for Labour Enforcement Officers.

The petitioners sought quashing of the rejection and a direction for grant of benefits from their respective due dates.

1. Whether the rejection of ACP/MACP benefits in the pay scales of Labour Superintendent and Assistant Labour Commissioner was legally sustainable under the existing government resolutions

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as granted by the Court in similar preceding litigations involving the same subject matter

The court's decision was predicated on the principles of parity and judicial consistency.

It relied on the framework of the ACP/MACP schemes as governed by Resolution No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 and Resolution No. 3594 dated 18.12.2007.

The court followed the precedents set in W.P.(S) No. 5362 of 2019 and W.P.(S) No. 4879 of 2021, which had already adjudicated the hierarchical status and eligibility for pay scale upgrades for the concerned cadre.

The Court noted the submission by the petitioners’ counsel that the legal issue regarding the entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits in the specific pay bands (Rs. 8000–13500, Rs. 10000–15200, and Rs. 15600–39100) was "squarely covered" by previous judgments of the same High Court.

Applying the principle of stare decisis at the Single Judge level, the Court determined that since the issues were identical, the petitioners were entitled to similar benefits, provided the relief remained contingent upon the final outcome of the pending appellate proceedings.

The respondents did not dispute the factual or legal overlap with the cited precedents but informed the court that those judgments were currently under challenge before a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

The Court ordered that these benefits be extended to the petitioners, but explicitly clarified that such benefits are subject to the final outcome of LPA No. 566 of 2025.

All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of.