The Gauhati High Court has clarified that under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), prior promotions or financial upgradations (ACP) that result in higher grade pay—not due to merger of pay scales—cannot be ignored when granting subsequent MACP benefits. The Court thereby narrows the interpretation and sets binding precedent within its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/244/2023 of THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs LALKUMAR EK AND 17 ORS. |
| CNR | GAHC010087472023 |
| Date of Registration | 23-06-2023 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY (Concurring) |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Gauhati High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the Single Judge’s decision in WP(C) No. 3818/2014 |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Government Service Pay Fixation |
| Questions of Law | Whether prior promotions/ACP upgradations which are not due to merger of posts can be ignored for granting benefits under MACPS? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that under Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 (MACPS), only those promotions/upgradations which resulted from merger of pay scales are to be ignored for subsequent MACP benefits. Where a higher grade/pay is acquired via promotion or financial upgradation under ACP (and not due to merger), such advancements must be counted for MACP computation. The benefit of higher grade pay under MACPS cannot be extended by disregarding genuine prior promotions or financial upgradations. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Tarani Kanta Sarma vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 760 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Respondents were initially appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II and got subsequent promotions or ACP benefits to Draughtsman Grade-I, not due to merger of posts. The Single Judge allowed their claim for higher grade pay under MACPS, ignoring these prior advancements. On appeal, Govt. argued such prior promotions/ACP must be counted. The Division Bench found the Single Judge misapplied Clause 5 of the MACPS notification and found in favour of the appellants, setting aside the Single Judge’s order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Service Tribunals |
| Overrules | Single Judge’s ruling in WP(C) No. 3818/2014 |
| Follows | Tarani Kanta Sarma vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 760 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that financial upgradation under MACPS cannot overlook prior promotions or ACP upgradations unless those arose from a merger of pay scales.
- Distinguishes the treatment of upgradations due to the merger (which can be ignored) versus genuine promotions/financial upgradations.
- Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 is authoritatively interpreted and limited in scope.
- Lawyers handling service matters relating to MACPS must precisely document the basis of previous upgradations—merger versus promotion/ACP.
- The court’s approach can be cited to resist broader, employee-favouring readings of MACPS unrelated to pay-scale merger.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench considered Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, which specifies that only promotions/upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme to grades merged by the 6th Pay Commission can be ignored for MACPS computation.
- The Court examined the respondents’ service history, noting that their advancements to higher grade pay (Rs. 4200) were due to promotions or ACP, not due to merger of posts.
- Citing Tarani Kanta Sarma, it reaffirmed that only upgradations from merged pay scales are to be excluded from the MACPS count. If the higher grade pay is due to promotion/ACP, MACPS will not overlook it.
- The judgment found the Single Judge’s reading overly broad, as it extended the exemption to all prior upgradations regardless of cause, which contradicts the scheme’s intent and the text of Clause 5.
- The factual difference between personnel benefiting through merger versus actual promotion is material, and the benefit of consecutive MACP upgradations is thus not available in the latter’s case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Union of India):
- The Single Judge failed to distinguish between upgradations due to promotion/ACP and those due to merger of pay scales.
- Respondents’ initial appointments and subsequent promotions were not a result of pay-scale merger, so Clause 5 exception did not apply.
- Granting higher MACPS grade pay by ignoring actual promotions/ACP would violate the scheme’s objectives.
Respondent (Lalkumar Ek & Ors.):
- Cited benefit accorded to similarly situated employees (Ramanan R and Vijay Pal Sharma) under MACPS.
- Claimed they were also entitled to the higher grade pay as their case was on par with those employees.
- Argued for parity in fixations under MACPS.
Factual Background
The case pertains to Draughtsman Grade-II employees promoted to Draughtsman Grade-I in the Border Roads Organization. They received promotions or benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). A Single Judge order had granted them entitlement to higher grade pay under MACPS by disregarding their prior promotions/ACP upgradations. The Union of India challenged this before the Division Bench. The main point at issue was whether these prior upgradations could be ignored under MACPS.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court focused on Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 (MACPS), which allows ignoring only those prior promotions/ACP upgradations that correspond to grades merged by the 6th Central Pay Commission for subsequent MACP computation.
- The interpretation emphasized a narrow scope, restricting exemption to upgradations caused solely by merger and not regular promotions/financial upgradations.
- “Direct entry” in the MACPS context refers to the original appointment grade and cannot be reclassified based on subsequent pay commission changes.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting opinions. Both judges concurred in the reasoning and result.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Relies on Tarani Kanta Sarma vs. Union of India & Ors. for key legal principles.
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules Single Judge’s broader reading of Clause 5 in WP(C) No. 3818/2014.