UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus M. V. MOHANAN NAIR

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus M. V. MOHANAN NAIR

MACP Scheme, introduced on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the Government, contemplates placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and does not entitle employees to the Grade Pay of the next promotional hierarchy as under the erstwhile ACP Scheme; Raj Pal (where an SLP was dismissed on delay) cannot be treated as a binding precedent on the merits; courts should not substitute their view for the expert Pay Commission absent arbitrariness.

Parties
Appellant: Union of India and Others; Respondent: M. V. Mohanan Nair
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Topics
Modified Assured Career Progression (macp) Scheme, Assured Career Progression (acp) Scheme, Pay Commission Recommendations, Relief Against Stagnation, Precedent Under Article 141
Service Law Constitutional Law Modified Assured Career Progression (macp) Scheme Assured Career Progression (acp) Scheme Pay Commission Recommendations Relief Against Stagnation Precedent Under Article 141

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India and Others

Appellant

M. V. Mohanan Nair

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MACP Scheme entitles financial upgradation to the immediate next higher Grade Pay or to the Grade Pay of the next promotional post as under ACP Scheme
  2. 2 Whether MACP Scheme is disadvantageous to employees compared to ACP Scheme if upgradation is in grade pay hierarchy
  3. 3 Whether employees are entitled to stepping up of grade pay to be at par with juniors who got higher grade pay under MACP

Ratio Decidendi

MACP Scheme, introduced on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the Government, contemplates placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and does not entitle employees to the Grade Pay of the next promotional hierarchy as under the erstwhile ACP Scheme; Raj Pal (where an SLP was dismissed on delay) cannot be treated as a binding precedent on the merits; courts should not substitute their view for the expert Pay Commission absent arbitrariness.