Case: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. M.V. MOHANAN NAIR

that there has been a declaration of law by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. [underlining added] Raj Pals case having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refiling, Raj Pals case ought not to have been quoted as precedent of this Court by the High Courts. 46. The learned counsel for the intervenors has referred to the record note of the meetings of the Joint Committee of MACP held under the chairmanship of JS(Establishment), DoP&T on 15.09.2010 and other dates and drawn our attention to various items viz. Item No.1-Provide for Grade Pay of the Next Promotional Post under MACP; Item No.3-Option for Earlier ACP Scheme; Item No.8-Anomaly on Introduction of MACP Scheme; and Item No.29 - Modification in MACP Scheme. In response to the above submission, Union of India has filed additional written submission referring to the decision in various meetings of the Joint Committee on MACP held on various dates. 47. 2nd Meeting of the Joint Committee dated 15.09.2010:- In the 2 nd Meeting of the Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010, it was decided that organisations/cadres would be given the option to choose either the ACP Scheme or the MACP Scheme. It was also decided that individual options would not be permitted. Since the ACP and MACP Scheme were fallback options for stagnating employees, it was therefore decided that process of completing cadre restructuring in a time bound manner would solve the problem of stagnation. It was further decided that cadre structure had to be reviewed periodically to harmonise the functional needs of the organisation and career progression of employees. (Vide copy of O.M. dated 10.02.2011). 48. 3rd Meeting of the Joint Committee dated 15.03.2011:- In the 3 rd Meeting of the Joint Committee held on 15.03.2011, the staff side reiterated their demand that the MACP Scheme should be granted in the promotional hierarchy of posts rather than in the grade pay hierarchy. The official side had suggested that the Government was willing to consider a revision in the MACP Scheme to the effect that organisations/cadres shall have the option to choose either the ACP Scheme or the MACP Scheme. But the staff side stated that such a dispensation would not be practical and there was a need to explore other alternatives to solve the issue. Therefore, it was agreed between the staff side and the official side that there was no need to change the basic structure of MACP Scheme, but there was a need to separately examine those cases where MACP Scheme was less advantageous than the ACP Scheme (Vide the Minutes of the 3 rd Meeting of Joint Committee dated 15.03.2011). Pursuant to the decision of the 3 rd Meeting of Joint Committee, it was decided that the official side would write to the Ministry of Railways, Defence, Urban Development, Home Affairs and the Department of Posts to forward information in respect of the specific categories of employees where the MACP was less advantageous than the erstwhile ACP Scheme. Accordingly, these Ministries/Departments were requested to send specific cases wherein, it was less advantageous for employees under MACP Scheme as compared to ACP Scheme. It is stated that no Ministry/Department other than Ministry of Urban Development had responded. (Vide Copy of Minutes dated 15.03.2011) 49. Meeting of the Joint Committee dated 27.07.2012:- In the meeting of the Joint Committee held on 27.07.2012, the official side stated that it was not possible to give individual options to the employees to opt for erstwhile ACP Scheme in preference to MACP Scheme for availing the benefit of financial upgradation. 50. Letter dated 04.11.2013:- Pursuant to the Joint Committee meeting held on 27.07.2012, a letter dated 04.11.2013 was sent to the staff side making it clear that the solution lies in review of cadre structure in a time bound manner with a view to mitigate the problem of stagnation as the benefit of Modified Assurance Career Progression Scheme have been granted as a fallback option in the event of promotions not taking place in time. With regard to letter dated 04.11.2013 which relates only to Postal Department, it is clarified that in the Department of Posts, the erstwhile ACP Scheme was not operational for postal employees. These employees were covered under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP)/Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Schemes. The MACP Scheme for Central Government employees is a continuation of ACP Scheme. Insofar as Department of Posts is concerned, it was decided by the Department of Posts to adopt MACP Scheme in respect of postal employees also w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Accordingly, O.M. No.4-7/(MACPS)/2009-PCC dated 18.09.2009 was issued by Department of Posts to clarify that TBOP/BCR Schemes stand discontinued w.e.f. 01.09.2008 consequent upon introduction of MACPS to postal employees w.e.f. 01.09.2008. The O.M. dated 1-20/2008-PCC dated 04.11.2013 was issued to regulate the fixation of pay in respect of postal employees during the period 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 i.e. before the switch over to MACPS took place. It is stated that the O.M. dated 04.11.2013 was only in respect of postal employees governed under TBOP/BCR and does not relate to Central Government employees who were covered under erstwhile ACP Scheme. Therefore, this O.M. has no bearing on the issue in the said SLP pending before Honble Supreme Court of India. 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 governments policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pals case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]25. Though various contentions have been raised assailing the MACP Scheme viz. financial upgradation in the next Grade Pay and no stepping up of pay on the ground that junior getting more pay, be it noted that the clauses of the MACP Scheme including the clause providing the financial upgradation in the next Grade Pay have not been challenged by the respondents. In the impugned judgments, the Tribunals/High Courts have only relied upon Raj Pals case and not gone into the MACP Scheme vis-à-vis erstwhile ACP Scheme and also not considered the merits of the contention of the respondents. We have therefore, considered the MACP Scheme vis-à-vis erstwhile ACP Scheme in the light of the contentions raised by the respondent26. As pointed out earlier, both ACP and MACP Schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief from stagnation in the form of financial benefits. Under the MACP Scheme, financial upgradations are granted at three regular intervals on completion of 10-20-30 years of service without promotion. Hence, it is also intended to ensure that the employees are adequately incentivised to work efficiently despite not getting promotion for want of promotional avenue. The change in policy brought about by supersession of the ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is after well-deliberated and well-documented recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. Considering the various issues in the implementation of the ACP Scheme, the Pay Commission expressed its views the only other way is to bring systematic changes in the existing Scheme of ACP so that all the employees irrespective of the existing hierarchy structure in their organisations/cadres, get some benefit under it. The Commission therefore, recommended that the existing Scheme of ACP be continued with the modifications indicated thereon in the Report that the financial upgradation has to be in the next immediate Grade Pay. One of the reasons for the expert body recommending the MACP Scheme was that there were inter- departmental disparities where several departments had varying promotional hierarchies. As a result, the working of ACP Scheme under which an employee who stagnated for 12 years, was entitled to pay in the Pay Scale of the next promotional post, led to inter-departmental anomalies. The Pay Commission therefore, recommended MACP Scheme with a view to putting an end to the problem ensuing from inter-departmental disparitiesMACP Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay. By perusal of the MACP Scheme extracted earlier, it is seen that the words used in the Scheme are placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands. The term Grade Pay in the next promotional post is conspicuously absent in the entire body of the MACP Scheme. The argument of the respondents that the benefit of MACP Scheme is referable to the promotional post, is de hors the MACP Scheme and cannot be accepted. Though ACP and MACP Schemes are intended to provide relief against stagnation, both the Schemes have different features. Pay scales under the Sixth Pay Commission and the MACP Scheme are stated to be more beneficial since it extends to the employees with time intervals with higher pay bands and various facilities which were not available under the ACP Scheme including the three financial upgradations in shorter time span. In any event, MACP Scheme has not been challenged by the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned ASG, the respondents cannot be permitted to cherry-pick beneficial features from the erstwhile ACP Scheme and also take advantage of the beneficial features in the MACP Scheme28. The object behind the MACP Scheme is to provide relief against the stagnation. If the arguments of the respondents are to be accepted, they would be entitled to be paid in accordance with the grade pay offered to a promotee; but yet not assume the responsibilities of a promotee29. The change in policy brought about by supersession of ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is after consideration of all the disparities and the representations of the employees. The Sixth Central Pay Commission is an expert body which has comprehensively examined all the issues and the representations as also the issue of stagnation and at the same time to promote efficiency in the functioning of the departments. MACP Scheme has been introduced on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission which has been accepted by the Government of India. After accepting the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the ACP Scheme was withdrawn and the same was superseded by the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. This is not some random exercise which is unilaterally done by the Government, rather, it is based on the opinion of the expert body – Sixth Central Pay Commission which has examined all the issues, various representations and disparities. Before making the recommendation for the Pay Scale/Revised Pay Scale, the Pay Commission takes into consideration the existing pay structure, the representations of the government servants and various other factors after which the recommendations are made. When the expert body like Pay Commission has comprehensively examined all the issues and representations and also took note of inter-departmental disparities owing to varying promotional hierarchies, the court should not interfere with the recommendations of the expert body. When the government has accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission and has also implemented those, any interference by the court would have a serious impact on the public exchequerIn the present batch of cases where the respondents are claiming financial upgradation in the grade pay of promotional hierarchy, no grounds are made out to show that the MACP Scheme granting financial upgradation in the next grade pay is arbitrary and unjust; warranting interference. The implementation of the MACP Scheme is claimed to have led to certain anomalies; but as pointed out earlier, MACP Scheme itself is not under challengeRajpals case did not go into any details in respect of the overall features of the new MACP Scheme and did not consider the recommendations of the expert body which culminated in the new Scheme. The order passed in Raj Pals case could not have been taken as a precedent in other cases. This is all the more so when SLP (C) No.….CC 7467 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition and no decision was rendered on meritsDismissal of case by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay in filing/non-filing, is not a binding precedent:43. As noted above, SLP preferred by Union of India against the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the High Court was dismissed on the ground that the delay in refiling has not been satisfactorily explainedRaj Pals case having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refiling, in our considered view, Raj Pals case ought not to have been quoted as a precedent of this Court by the High CourtsRaj Pals case having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refiling, Raj Pals case ought not to have been quoted as precedent of this Court by the High Courts51. 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 governments policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pals case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside44. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, i.e. the pronouncement of the law on the point shall operate as a binding precedent on all courts within India. Law declared by the Supreme Court has to be essentially understood as a principle laid down by the court and it is this principle which has the effect of a precedent. A principle as understood from the word itself is a proposition which can only be delivered after examination of the matter on merits. It can never be in a summary manner, much less be rendered in a decision delivered on technical grounds, without entering into the merits at all. A decision, unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to be a law declared by the Supreme Court though it will bind the parties inter-se in drawing the curtain on the litigation.