Facts
The applicant, Sunil Kumar Mukerjee, was appointed as a Labour Grade-‘B’ in 1979 and subsequently appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper (ASK) on June 8, 1985
Source reference: p. 2, 4He was granted his first financial up-gradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme on August 9, 1999, and promoted to Supervisor on November 17, 2003
Source reference: p. 4-5He retired on December 31, 2013
Source reference: p. 3The applicant challenged the order dated April 3, 2015, which rejected his prayer for the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-
Source reference: p. 2He contended that a junior employee, Roop Kishore Bedi (Respondent No. 5), was granted this Grade Pay effective June 1, 2007, and that he should be entitled to the same benefit under the ACP or Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme
Source reference: p. 2The respondents argued that Respondent No. 5 was appointed earlier (June 1, 1983) and satisfied the 24-year service requirement for the second ACP before the scheme was superseded by MACP on September 1, 2008
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the second financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme at par with a supposedly junior employee
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the denial of the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- under the ACP/MACP schemes was legally sustainable
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The court applied the principles governing the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme as established by Government of India policy
Source reference: p. 5-6The ACP scheme provided up-gradations upon completion of 12 and 24 years of service, whereas the MACP scheme, which superseded ACP effective September 1, 2008, provided up-gradations at 10, 20, and 30 years
Source reference: p. 3-4The court also relied on the principle that financial up-gradations under these schemes are "purely based on personal basis and service rendered by the individuals" rather than seniority alone
Source reference: p. 5Furthermore, it noted the limited scope of judicial review over expert body recommendations like the Pay Commission
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 5 was not junior to the applicant, having been appointed as an ASK on June 1, 1983, while the applicant was appointed on June 8, 1985
Source reference: p. 3Respondent No. 5 completed the 24 years of service required for the second ACP on June 1, 2007, prior to the implementation of the MACP scheme
Source reference: p. 3, 5In contrast, the applicant would have completed 24 years only on June 18, 2009. However, since the ACP scheme was superseded by the MACP scheme on September 1, 2008, the applicant could no longer claim benefits under the old ACP criteria
Source reference: p. 3, 5The Tribunal noted the applicant had already received a second financial up-gradation under the MACP scheme effective September 1, 2008, because he had completed 20 years of service by that date
Source reference: p. 5The Tribunal reasoned that since these schemes are individual-centric and based on specific service milestones, the applicant could not claim parity with Respondent No. 5
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Tribunal answered both issues in the negative, holding that the applicant was not entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- under the ACP scheme as he had not met the eligibility criteria before the scheme was superseded
The Tribunal affirmed that the MACP scheme is a matter of government policy and found no evidence of it being arbitrary or unjust. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Sunil Kumar MukherjeevsM/o Defence
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in