Retrospective delinking of the ₹6,500–10,500 scale precludes merger-based MACP financial-upgradation claims.

The two writ appeals arose from a common judgment dated 24.06.2024 in WP(C) Nos. 45 and 46 of 2015. The writ petitioners were employees of North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) who had received their first financial upgradation under the UGC’s One Time Upward Movement Scheme in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5500–9000.

In the first case, Shri Panna Lal Shome joined NEHU as a Junior Stenographer on 06.03.1986, received his first financial upgradation on 06.03.1994, and his second financial upgradation in the scale of Rs. 6500–10500 with effect from 06.03.2006. He was subsequently granted a third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

In the second case, Shri Ajoy Krishna Bhattacharjee joined NEHU as a Stenographer on 04.09.1989, received his first financial upgradation on 04.09.1997, and his second and third financial upgradations thereafter.

The employees contended that, under paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme, their earlier financial upgradations should be ignored because the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5500–9000 and Rs. 6500–10500 had initially been merged under the Sixth Central Pay Commission into the same revised grade pay of Rs. 4200. They consequently claimed higher grade pays of Rs. 4800 on the second financial upgradation and Rs. 6600 on the third financial upgradation.

The learned Single Judge rejected the claim for grade pay of Rs. 6600 but directed NEHU to grant grade pay of Rs. 4800 on the second financial upgradation and Rs. 5400 on the third financial upgradation, along with consequential arrears. NEHU challenged that decision in the present appeals.

1. Whether the earlier financial upgradation granted to the writ petitioners in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5500–9000 was required to be ignored under paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme on the ground that it had merged with the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500–10500 under the Sixth CPC?

2. Whether the writ petitioners were entitled to grade pay of Rs. 4800 on their second financial upgradation and grade pay of Rs. 5400 on their third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme?

3. Whether the withdrawn and uncirculated order dated 30.10.2012 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of NEHU could support the employees’ claim for higher grade pay?

The Court applied the Sixth Central Pay Commission framework and the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, under which the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5000–8000, Rs. 5500–9000 and Rs. 6500–10500 were initially placed in the revised PB-2 structure with grade pay of Rs. 4200.

However, the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009 retrospectively granted the posts existing in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500–10500 a higher grade pay of Rs. 4600 with effect from 01.01.2006, thereby removing that scale from the relevant merger.

Paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme permits past promotions or financial upgradations to be ignored only where the relevant grades carry the same grade pay because of a merger or restructuring under the Sixth CPC.

A movement to a higher grade pay within the same pay band constitutes a financial upgradation and counts for purposes of the MACP Scheme.

The Court held that, although the scales of Rs. 5500–9000 and Rs. 6500–10500 were initially assigned the same grade pay of Rs. 4200, the position was retrospectively altered by the Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009. The scale of Rs. 6500–10500 was thereafter upgraded to grade pay of Rs. 4600 and no longer formed part of the same merged structure as Rs. 5500–9000.

The petitioners were in the Rs. 5500–9000 scale, corresponding to grade pay of Rs. 4200, when they received their first financial upgradation. They were placed in grade pay of Rs. 4600 only upon receiving their second financial upgradation; there was no evidence that they had previously held the Rs. 6500–10500 scale.

Since the placement in grade pay of Rs. 4600 itself constituted a higher financial upgradation, paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme was inapplicable.

The Court also rejected reliance on the Vice-Chancellor’s order dated 30.10.2012 because it had neither been circulated nor implemented and had been withdrawn on the same day. The authorities cited from the Kerala High Court were held not to assist the petitioners on the facts of the present case.

Consequently, the writ petitioners were not entitled to grade pay of Rs. 4800 on the second financial upgradation or Rs. 5400 on the third financial upgradation on the basis accepted by the Single Judge. The common judgment dated 24.06.2024 was set aside, and WA Nos. 58 and 59 of 2024 were allowed. No order as to costs was made.