A former Senior Auditor's bid for revised career progression benefits under the ACP scheme has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, citing a Supreme Court ruling on the MACP Scheme.

Madhu Joshi, a retired Senior Auditor, has lost her case against the Indian government regarding career progression scheme benefits, filed an OA (Original Application) with the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi) seeking a second MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) with a higher grade pay. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi dismissed her plea for revised benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme. Joshi, who served in the Office of Directorate of Accounts, Cabinet Secretariat, argued that she was entitled to a higher grade pay based on her length of service.
The respondents, the Union of India, argued that the implementation of the MACP scheme in 2009 superseded Joshi's claim as it was enacted before she received her second ACP.

Joshi's Argument Eligibility for Second ACP: Joshi argued she became eligible for her second ACP on 06.09.2008 after completing 24 years of service, but the retrospective implementation of MACP from 01.09.2008 disadvantaged her. Discrimination: She stated that not applying the benefit of the ACP to all eligible employees violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Indian Constitution, as others in similar situations had received the benefit.

Respondent (Govt's) Argument Supreme Court Precedent: They cited a Supreme Court ruling in UOI Vs. Shri M. V. Mohanan Nair that stayed a Kerala High Court judgment regarding MACP benefits. Time-Barred Claim: They asserted that Joshi's claim was time-barred because she didn't challenge the second financial upgradation granted to her in 2009 under the MACP scheme at the time. Policy Decision: They emphasized that the MACP scheme was a policy decision of the government, based on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. They argued that courts shouldn't interfere with policy decisions.

Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion Supreme Court Judgement: The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in the Union of India & Ors. Etc. vs. S Ranjit Samuel & Ors. Etc.(2022) case, which addressed similar issues. This judgement clarified that employees who had not received benefits under the ACP scheme before the implementation of MACP would fall under the MACP scheme. Late Filing by Applicant: Although disagreeing with the respondent's reasoning for rejecting Joshi's claim based on the limited applicability of court orders, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed her OA. This decision was based on the applicant's delay in filing the petition, waiting until after retirement despite being aware of the MACP scheme since 2009.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed Joshi's OA, highlighting the importance of timely legal action in service matters which occurred after her retirement. It argued that she had ample opportunity to challenge the MACP scheme's implementation during her service but chose not to. The CAP also affirming the Supreme Court's stance in the case of Union of India & Ors. Etc. vs. S Ranjit Samuel & Ors. Etc. (2022). This ruling upheld the government's implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme.

The MACP scheme, introduced in 2009, replaced the ACP scheme and brought about different criteria for financial upgradations. The Supreme Court, in its 2022 judgment, clarified that the MACP scheme's retrospective implementation from September 1, 2008, superseded the ACP scheme for employees who had not already received benefits under the ACP scheme. This case highlights the complexities surrounding government career progression schemes and the impact of legal interpretations on employee benefits.

Between: Madhu Joshi Vs Union of India, (Represented by its Secretary, Respondent No. 1 Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Administrative Reforms, D/o Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi.)
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Manish Garg.
Reserved on: 10.04.2024
Pronounced on: 20.05.2024
Judgement Here