Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme vs. Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme in service matters: The Chief Executive Officer & Others vs. S. Lalitha & Others (24 April 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 565

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

When government employees are entitled to financial benefits under service schemes, disputes can arise regarding which scheme applies. The Supreme Court of India recently addressed such a dispute, focusing on the applicability of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme of 1999 and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme of 2009. This case examines the circumstances under which an employee’s claim for financial upgradation under the older ACP Scheme can be superseded by the newer MACP Scheme. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

S. Lalitha joined Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, on 11 March 1985, as a TV News and Film Librarian (Library & Information Assistant). On 31 May 2002, she received her first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, effective from 9 August 1999. As the ACP Scheme provided for financial upgradations after 12 and 24 years of service, Lalitha expected her second upgradation from 11 March 2009. However, the MACP Scheme came into force on 19 May 2009, superseding the ACP Scheme.

The MACP Scheme stipulated placement in the immediate next higher grade pay after 10, 20, and 30 years of service. It also stated that any upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme to grades with the same Grade Pay due to pay scale mergers or upgradations recommended by the 6th Pay Commission would be disregarded for MACP Scheme purposes.

Lalitha was granted the second benefit under the MACP Scheme, placing her in Pay Band 2 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-, effective from 1 September 2008, via an order dated 10 August 2010. Subsequently, on 11 July 2015, she received her third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, with a Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-, through an order dated 18 November 2015. Lalitha accepted these benefits without any objections initially.

On 4 October 2016, Lalitha requested the Director General of Doordarshan to grant her the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with a Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- effective from 11 March 2009, and the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with a Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/- effective from 11 March 2015. This representation was rejected on 5 November 2016 by the Dy. Director (S.II).

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Lalitha challenged the rejection of her representation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru. The Tribunal allowed her original application, relying on a judgment of the High Court dated 5 June 2017, in the case of B. D. Kadam & ors. v. Union of India & ors.

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, concurring with the decision in B. D. Kadam. The High Court noted that the Union of India had challenged the decision in B.D. Kadam before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) D No. 29605 of 2017, but no order had been passed. The High Court also acknowledged that the Tribunal’s order had been complied with.

The Supreme Court noted that SLP (Civil) D. No. 29605 of 2017 was dismissed on 27 January 2020. A review petition was subsequently filed before the High Court, which was rejected on 7 March 2023. Challenging this rejection, SLP (Civil) D. No. 45401 of 2023 was filed, in which the Supreme Court issued notice on 8 December 2023, considering the decisions in Union of India & ors. v. S. Ranjit Samuel & ors. and Vice Chairman, DDA v. Narendra Kumar & ors.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the ACP and MACP Schemes, along with the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

• Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, 1999: This scheme provided financial upgradations in the hierarchical scale after 12 and 24 years of service.
• Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, 2009: Superseding the ACP Scheme, the MACP Scheme envisages placement in the immediate next higher grade pay on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service. It also stipulates that upgradations under the ACP Scheme to grades with the same Grade Pay due to pay scale mergers or upgradations recommended by the 6th Pay Commission shall be ignored for granting upgradations under the MACP Scheme.

The key difference between the two schemes is that the ACP Scheme provided financial upgradation to the pay scale of the next higher promotional post, while the MACP Scheme provides financial upgradation with reference to the next higher grade pay in the scale of pay as notified upon implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2018.

The Supreme Court also considered Section 20 and Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:

• Section 20: “Application not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted”. This section mandates that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless the applicant has availed all remedies available under the relevant service rules for redressal of grievances.
• Section 21: “Limitation”. This section specifies the time limits for admitting an application to a Tribunal. It states that an application must be made within one year from the date of the final order, or within one year from the expiry of six months if no final order has been made after an appeal or representation.

Arguments

The appellants contended that the issue of the respondent’s entitlement was still at large, especially with the pending SLP (Civil) D. No. 45401 of 2023. They also raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the original application (O.A.) before the Tribunal, arguing that it was time-barred and should have been dismissed.

The respondent, on the other hand, claimed entitlement to the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with a Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- effective from 11 March 2009, and the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with a Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/- effective from 11 March 2015.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants revisiting the maintainability of the original application despite compliance with the Tribunal’s order, citing subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to succeed in her claim before the Tribunal and the High Court.
2. Whether the original application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal was time-barred.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision.

• C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding belated approaches with stale grievances in service-related disputes.
• Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited on the issue of limitation and delay in approaching the court with stale claims.
• State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding belated claims for grant of promotion.
• Union of India v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding the principle that a subsequent judgment cannot revive a dead and stale claim.
• State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, (2023) 15 SCC 273, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to consider the effect that unexplained delay and laches would have in availing remedies.
• S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited upon noting Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
• D.B. Gohil v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 301, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to clear the position that the CAT does have, in exceptional cases, the power to entertain an original application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act even if the applicant before it has not exhausted the remedies available to him under the service rules applicable to him as to redressal of grievances.
• Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding different considerations that would arise in a case of a continuous wrong.
• Union of India & ors. v. S. Ranjit Samuel & ors., 2022 INSC 340, Supreme Court of India: This case was considered when the Supreme Court issued notice in SLP (Civil) D. No. 45401 of 2023.
• Vice Chairman, DDA v. Narendra Kumar & ors., (2022) 11 SCC 641, Supreme Court of India: This case was considered when the Supreme Court issued notice in SLP (Civil) D. No. 45401 of 2023.
• Union of India v. N.M. Raut, 2024 INSC 1042, Supreme Court of India: This case was looked into upon thorough consideration of the MACP scheme and the decisions referred to therein.
• B. D. Kadam & ors. v. Union of India & ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4772, High Court of Karnataka: The Tribunal proceeded to allow the O.A. of the respondent relying on this judgment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115: The Court used this authority to emphasize that belated approaches with stale grievances in service-related disputes should not be entertained.
• Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59: The Court cited this authority to support the view that limitation and delay should be considered with reference to the original cause of action, not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction.
• State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179: This authority was used to highlight that a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time.
• Union of India v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798: The Court cited this case to reinforce the principle that a subsequent judgment cannot revive a dead and stale claim.
• State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, (2023) 15 SCC 273: This authority was used to consider the effect that unexplained delay and laches would have in availing remedies.
• S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582: The Court noted Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, based on this authority.
• D.B. Gohil v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 301: This authority was used to clarify that the CAT does have the power to entertain an original application even if the applicant has not exhausted all remedies under the service rules.
• Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648: The Court cited this case to distinguish the considerations that would arise in a case of a continuous wrong.
• Union of India v. N.M. Raut, 2024 INSC 1042: The Court distinguished this case, noting a factual dissimilarity. In N.M. Raut, financial upgradations were granted under the MACP Scheme despite the grant of non-functional upgradation, which was not the case here.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that belated claims should not be entertained, especially when the applicant has accepted benefits under an alternative scheme without protest. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation periods prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Court also considered the factual aspects of the case, distinguishing it from other cases where financial upgradations were granted despite non-functional upgradations.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the respondent should have approached the Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected. The Court also considered the respondent’s retirement and financial situation, ultimately deciding not to direct a refund of any surplus amount received by her.

Key quotes from the judgment:

• “The respondent ought to have availed the remedy before the Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected.”
• “Filing of such belated representation, which was rejected in no time, did not have the effect of postponing the cause of action and stretching the period of limitation.”
• “The O.A. was time-barred and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal.”

Key Takeaways

• Government employees must approach the appropriate forum promptly when their rights are affected.
• Acceptance of benefits under one scheme may preclude claims under a different scheme.
• Limitation periods under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, must be strictly observed.
• Belated representations do not extend the period of limitation.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not direct the respondent to refund any surplus amount received by her, considering her retirement and financial situation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that belated claims for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, made after accepting benefits under the MACP Scheme, are not maintainable due to limitation. This clarifies the importance of timely action and adherence to limitation periods in service matters, reinforcing the principles established in previous judgments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal without interfering with the impugned order, holding that the original application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal was time-barred. The Court emphasized the importance of timely action in service matters and adherence to limitation periods under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. While the Court did not direct a refund of the benefits already received by the respondent, the judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the applicability of the ACP and MACP Schemes.