THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. versus K. SUDHEESH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 28-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 720
720
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
v.
K. SUDHEESH KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 442 of 2022)
JANUARY 28, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – MACP Scheme – Claim of grade pay of
Rs.6600/- – Clause 8.1 of the scheme provides that the grade pay
of Rs.5400 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate
grade pays for the purpose of grant of upgradations under MACP
Scheme – However, the respondents (in PB-2) were granted grade
pay of Rs.6600 for PB-3 under MACP Scheme by the High Court –
High Court observed that the next promotional post carries a grade
pay of Rs.6600, when the third financial upgradation is due to an
employee, it has to be of the next promotional post in the hierarchy
as per the Recruitment Rules – On appeal, held: It was specifically
observed and held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan
Nair that MACP has nothing to do with the next promotional post
and what the employee would be entitled would be the immediate
next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised
pay bands and grade pay as given in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,
2008 – As per clause 8.1 of the MACP scheme grade pay of PB-2
and PB-3 would be Rs.5400/- – The High Court has committed a
grave error in allowing the grade pay of Rs.6600, the grade pay
which was available to the next promotional post – Therefore,
judgment and the order passed by the High Court set aside –
Respondents entitled to the next grade pay of Rs.5400 as per clause
8.1 – CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. At the outset it is required to be noted that the
issue involved in the present appeal is as such squarely covered
by the decision of this Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair.
By detailed judgment and order this Court has interpreted the
very MACP Scheme and it is observed and held that under the
MACP Scheme employees are entitled to the immediate next
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
higher grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule
of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. It is specifically observed
and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that MACP has
nothing to do with the next promotional post and what the
employee would be entitled would be the immediate next higher
grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands
and grade pay as given in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
As per clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme ‘consequently upon the
implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations, grade pay of
PB-2 and PB-3 would be Rs.5400. It specifically provides that
the grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be
treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of
upgradations under the MACP Scheme’. Therefore, respondent
Nos.1 & 2 as PB-2 shall be entitled to the next grade pay of
Rs.5400 as per clause 8.1 and as per Section 1, Part A of the First
Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The High Court
has allowed the grade pay of Rs.6600 by considering the next
promotion post of Assistant Director i.e., Deputy Director which
carries a grade pay of Rs.6600. However, the aforesaid
interpretation would be contrary to the MACP Scheme. On
considering the relevant clauses of the MACP Scheme, it appears
that the MACP Scheme envisages placement in the immediate
next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended
revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of
the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Thus,
the High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the grade
pay of Rs.6600 the grade pay which was available to the next
promotional post as Deputy Director. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as
per PB-2 were entitled to the grade pay of Rs.5400 as PB- 3 as
per clause 8.1. [Para 7][726-C-H; 727-A]
2. By the impugned judgment and order and while granting
grade pay of Rs.6600 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 virtually, the High
Court has modified the MACP Scheme which has been framed
by the Government on the recommendations of the expert body
like the pay commission and its recommendations for the MACP
Scheme. As observed and held by this Court in the case of M.V.
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. v. K.
SUDHEESH KUMAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Mohanan Nair the ACP which is now superseded by MACP
Scheme is a matter of Government policy and interfering with
the recommendati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.