* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: April 04, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 3420/2010
R.S.SENGOR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.E.J.Varghese, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Anjum Javed, Advocate with
Mr.Nirbhay Sharma, Advocate and
Mr.Ravinder Kumar (Accounts
Officer) CISF for R-1 to R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Prior to the implementation of the Pay-Bands
recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, Inspectors
in CISF were placed in the Pay-Scale `6,500-200-10,500/- till
31.5.2005 which was upgraded to `7,450-225-11,500/- with
effect from 1.1.2006 and with the promulgation of the new
Pay-Scales after 6th Central Pay Commission gave a report,
Inspectors were placed in the Pay Band II i.e. `9,300-34,800/-
+ Grade Pay of `4,600/-. It is apparent that the erstwhile
concept of pay scale stands replaced by the concept of Pay
Band.
W.P.(C) No.3420/2010 Page 1 of 5
2. The earlier Assured Career Progression Scheme
which was in force till 31.8.2008 envisaged two financial
upgradations as per DOPT OM dated 9.8.1999; the first
upgradation after completing 12 years’ service and the second
after completion of 24 years’ service.
3. Relevant would it be to note that under the Assured
Career Progression Scheme the financial upgradation was by
way of fixation of the pay prescribed for the promotional post
in the hierarchy.
4. With the implementation of the Pay Bands after the
6th Central Pay Commission made recommendations, various
erstwhile pay scales were merged in a common Pay Band and
a higher grade pay was given to the posts with onerous and
higher responsibilities. The Assured Career Progression
Scheme was replaced by the Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (MACPS) as per DOPT OM dated
19.5.2009 which envisaged 3 financial upgradations, the first
after 10 years of service, the second after 20 years of service
and the third after 30 years of service.
5. Para 2, 8 and 8.1 of the Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (MACPS) are relevant and they are noted
as under:-
“2. The MACPS envisages merely placement in
the immediate next higher grade pay in the
hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands
and grade pay as given in Section I, Part-A of the
first schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
Thus, the grade pay at the time of financial
upgradation under the MACPS can, in certain cases
where regular promotion is not between two
successive grades, be different than what is
available at the time of regular promotion. In such
cases, the higher grade pay attached to the next
W.P.(C) No.3420/2010 Page 2 of 5
promotion post in the hierarchy of the concerned
cadre/organization will be given only at the time of
regular promotion.
8. Promotions earned in the post carrying same
grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per
Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose
of MACPS.
8.1 Consequent upon the implementation of Sixth
CPC’s recommendations, grade pay of `5,400/- is
now in two pay bands viz., PB-2 and PB-3. The
grade pay of `5,400/- in PB-2 and `5,400/- in PB-3
shall be treated as separate grade pays for the
purpose of grant of upgradations under MACP
Scheme.”
6. Annexure I to the DOPT OM dated 19.5.2009, vide
illustration 4 clarifies as under:-
“In case a Govt. servant joins as a direct recruits in
the Grade Pay of `1,900/- in Pay Band-I `5,200-
20,200/- and he gets no promotion till completion of
10 years of service, he will be granted financial
upgradtaion under MACP scheme in the next higher
Grade Pay of `2,000/- and his pay will be fixed by
granting him one increment + difference of grade
pay (i.e. `100/-). After availing financial
upgradation under MACP scheme, if the Govt.
servant gets his regular promotion in the hierarchy
of his cadre, which is to the Grade of `2,400/-, on
regular promotion, he will only be granted the
difference of Grade Pay of between `2,000/- and
`2,400/-. No additional increment will be granted at
this stage.”
7. Noting the relevant facts Inspectors in the Pay Band
2 `9,300-34,800/- get a Grade Pay of `4,600/- have been
granted under the MACPS the first financial upgradation by
retaining the Pay Band but giving the Grade Pay `4,800/-.
Their grievance as raised in the writ petition is that they are
W.P.(C) No.3420/2010 Page 3 of 5
entitled to the Grade Pay `5,400/- and to highlight the basis of
their claim it is to be noted that the next hierarchical post i.e.
that of Asst. Commandant is in Pay Band `15,600-39,100/- with
Grade Pay `5,400/-. It be clarified that they do not claim a
right to be placed in the Pay Band `15,600-39,100/- but claim
benefit of the Grade Pay of the said Pay Band and it is
apparent that the basis of the claim is paragraph 2 of the
MACPS which states that the Scheme envisages placement in
the immediate next higher Grade Pay hierarchy.
8. It be noted that the erstwhile pay scales S-9 to S-15
which ranged between `4,500-7,000/- to `7,500-12,000/- have
all been placed in Pay Band 2 i.e. `9,300-34,800/- with Grade
Pays `4,200, `4,600 and `4,800/-.
9. Thus, the respondents state that they have
correctly granted MACPS benefit by upgrading the Grade Pay
of Inspectors from `4,600/- to `4,800/-.
10. The question would be whether the hierarchy
contemplated by the MACPS is in the immediately next higher
Grade Pay or is it the Grade Pay of the next above Pay Band.
11. Whatever may be the dispute which may be raised
with reference to the language of paragraph 2 of the MACPS
the illustration as per para 4 of Annexure I to the OM, contents
whereof have been extracted hereinabove, make it clear that
it is the next higher Grade Pay which has to be given and not
the Grade Pay in the next hierarchical post and thus we agree
with the respondents that Inspectors have to be given the
Grade Pay after 10 years in sum of `4,800/- and not `5,400/-
which is the Grade Pay of the next Pay Band and relatable to
the next hierarchical post. To put it pithily, the MACPS Scheme
W.P.(C) No.3420/2010 Page 4 of 5
requires the hierarchy of the Grade Pays to be adhered to and
not the Grade Pay in the hierarchy of posts.
12. The writ petition is dismissed.
13. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
APRIL 04, 2011
mm
W.P.(C) No.3420/2010 Page 5 of 5