AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Das, J
The applicants have filed this OA seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) quash the circular dt.4.7.2012 (Annexure A1 supra) with direction to the respondents to grant the applicants and similarly situated teachers the benefits of the MACP Scheme in accordance with the hierarchy of promotional posts in terms of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A Nos.904/2012 & 864/2012 with all the arrears thereof w.e.f. 1.9.2008 along with interests;
AND
(ii) Pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper."
This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2014 and we are inclined to dispose of the case, as this Tribunal is set up for speedy disposal of the service matters of the Government employees. However, due to absence of learned counsel for applicants and since no application for adjournment has been moved on his behalf, we perused the pleadings on record and heard Mr. R.K.Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The applicants were school teachers in MCD. The hierarchy of promotional posts for the Assistant Teacher is to the post of Principal, then School Inspector, and thereafter Assistant Director of Education. The Grade Pay attached to the post of Principal is Rs.4600, School Inspector is Rs.5400 and the Assistant Director of Education is Rs.6600. The prayer of the applicants is that the benefits of MACP Scheme ought to be granted in accordance with the promotional hierarchy. They relied on the decisions of this Tribunal passed in OAs No.904/2012 and 864/2014 wherein respondents were directed to grant MACP benefits in accordance with the hierarchy of promotional post. In this behalf, applicants also made representation dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure A-7 to the OA). However, no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Hence, this OA.
Respondents filed a counter affidavit. Mr. R.K.Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the MACP Scheme has been introduced in supersession of ACP Scheme, and is granted in the successive grade pay in the hierarchy of recommended revised pay band and grade pay, as prescribed in CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and not in promotional hierarchy, as available in the ACP Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the present OA is liable to be dismissed, in terms of Union of India & Ors. vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421, wherein a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the ACP Scheme as well as the MACP Scheme and held that the schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes which were effected to relieve stagnation. The Hon'ble Court was of the considered view that the Respondents therein were entitled only to the benefit of next grade pay in the pay band, and not to the benefit of grade pay of next promotional post. As the MACP Scheme is a matter of Government policy pursuant to the recommendations made by the Pay Commission, their Lordships declined to accept the submissions of the concerned employees.
In M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"51. The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference. Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the government's policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal's case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside."
In view of the settled position of law in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.