Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) means next grade pay, not next promotion: SC sets aside ‘Raj Pal’ line; no stepping-up for juniors
Case name: Union of India & Ors. v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (with connected appeals)
Date of Order: 05 March 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 2016–2022 of 2020; 2044–2045 of 2020
Bench: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna J., Hrishikesh Roy J.
Held: Under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, financial upgradation is to the immediate next higher grade pay in the grade-pay hierarchy, not to the grade pay of the next promotional post. MACP is a personal, non-functional placement and does not confer promotional status; no stepping-up is admissible merely because a junior draws higher pay due to MACP. High Court and CAT orders granting promotional-hierarchy benefits by relying on Raj Pal were erroneous; a Special Leave Petition dismissed for delay does not create binding precedent under Article 141.
Summary: Addressing widespread reliance on Raj Pal to award promotional-hierarchy grade pay, the Court contrasted the 1999 ACP (two upgradations at 12/24 years in the promotional hierarchy) with the 2009 MACP (three upgradations at 10/20/30 years in the grade-pay hierarchy). The Sixth Central Pay Commission deliberately shifted to MACP to cure inter-departmental inequities created by varying promotional ladders; employees drawing revised pay under the Sixth CPC cannot cherry-pick ACP’s promotional benefits while claiming MACP’s broader upgradations. MACP’s text repeatedly speaks of placement in the “immediate next higher grade pay” and omits any reference to the next promotional post; courts cannot rewrite policy framed on expert-body recommendations absent clear arbitrariness. Stepping-up claims likewise fail because MACP upgradation is purely personal and unrelated to seniority. The Court also clarified that Raj Pal could not be treated as a precedent since the SLP there was dismissed only on delay in refiling, not on merits; non-speaking dismissals do not declare law. Reaffirming judicial restraint in pay-fixation matters, the Court declined to disturb a scheme with significant fiscal and structural implications when the challenge was policy disagreement rather than constitutional infirmity.
Decision: Appeals allowed. Judgments of the Tribunals/High Courts granting MACP benefits in the promotional hierarchy are set aside. Respondents are entitled only to immediate next higher grade pay under MACP; no stepping-up is permissible on account of a junior’s MACP fixation. Pending connected matters on separate stepping-up issues stand to be dealt with independently as directed.