Summary
DDA employees sought a second financial upgradation under the superseded ACP scheme after completing twenty-four years in 2009. The Court rejected both that claim and the High Court’s decision to apply MACP from January 2006. MACP operated from September 2008, and mere eligibility for consideration under ACP created no vested entitlement. DDA’s appeals were allowed and the employees’ appeals dismissed. Interim ACP benefits could be reversed, but MACP benefits independently granted from later dates were protected.
Issues
- Whether MACP applied from January 2006 or September 2008 to the DDA employees.
- Whether eligibility for consideration created a vested right to second ACP benefits under the superseded scheme.
- How interim ACP benefits and separately granted later MACP benefits should be treated.
Provisions considered
- Paragraphs 2, 9 and 11, Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, Office Memorandum dated 19 May 2009MACP operated from 1 September 2008 and replaced ACP thereafter. Preservation of accrued ACP cases did not indefinitely continue the old scheme or convert conditional eligibility into a vested entitlement. (¶¶ 7, 18, 23, 27, 30-36)
Held
- The High Court erred in applying the Armed Forces decision in Balbir Singh Turn to these employees. The governing scheme and subsequent decisions established 1 September 2008 as the relevant MACP commencement date; the different date for revised pay did not alter it. (¶ 24-28)
- Central Government pay policies did not automatically apply to DDA as an autonomous statutory organisation. DDA had to consider and adopt the scheme, which it did by its office order of 6 October 2009. (¶ 29)
- Paragraph 9 preserved processing of eligible ACP cases up to the old scheme’s closing date, 31 August 2008. It did not create an independent transitional right for every employee awaiting upgradation to insist on continued ACP treatment thereafter. (¶ 30-31)
- The employees had not actually earned the disputed second ACP benefit. Qualification for consideration remained dependent on review of records and fulfilment of conditions; their expectation was distinguishable from an accrued benefit already enjoyed and retrospectively withdrawn. (¶ 32-36)
- Career-progression policy and effective dates involved administrative and financial considerations. Without palpable or facial arbitrariness, judicial review did not justify rewriting the scheme merely because some employees would have benefited more under ACP. (¶¶ 28, 36-37)
- DDA’s appeals were allowed and the employees’ appeals dismissed. ACP benefits granted under interim orders subject to the outcome could be reversed; later MACP benefits granted by DDA on its own assessment of entitlement were not to be disturbed. (¶ 38)
Result
DDA appeals allowed and employees’ appeals dismissed, without costs. The High Court judgment was set aside. Interim ACP benefits could be reversed, while MACP benefits independently granted by DDA from later dates were protected.