THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARENDER KUMAR & ORS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 08-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 480
480
THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
NARENDER KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1880 of 2022)
MARCH 08, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ]
Service Law: Delhi Development Authority – Assured Career
Progression Scheme – In the instant case, the employees
(respondents) sought applicability of Assured Career Progression
Scheme, which if applies, will give them the benefit of grant of second
financial up-gradation w.e.f 03.01.2009 – On the other hand,
appellant-authority sought application of Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme upon the ground that the same become operative
from 01.09.2008 – Respondents successfully filed application before
the Central Administrative Tribunal – Appellant authority
approached High Court – High Court relied on the decision in Union
of India v. Balbir Singh Turn, in which case it was held that the Armed
Forces Personnel had to be given benefit of MACP from the date of
the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission i.e. from
01.01.2006 and not from 1.09.2008 as decided by the Central
Government and therefore upon the same logic, in the instant case
the MACP shall come into effect from 01.01.2006 – Held: None of
the employees actually earned a second financial up-gradation,
though they undoubtedly became eligible for consideration but the
eligibility does not ipso facto translate into entitlement as per the
scheme of the ACP and therefore second ACP up-gradation was
not automatic but dependent on external factors, eg. employees’
record – The contention of the employees that they had vested right
is not tenable as benefit under the ACP scheme was by way of
incentive granted to avoid stagnation with respect to those employee
who could not get promoted for an ascertained period of time –
Such benefit by way of incentive are not embodied under rules but
is in the form of executive order and since MACP is aimed to benefit
a sizable section of the employees, and not only the respondent, as
in this case, hence the same cannot be interfered with.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
Service Law: Assured Career Progression Scheme – Policy
Behind Financial Up-Gradation – Financial up-gradation under
the ACP Scheme was available only if regular promotion during the
stipulated intervals, 12 years and 24 years, was not granted to an
employee – Its intent was to extend relief for stagnation faced by
employees’ due inadequate promotional probabilities – A singular
feature of the ACP scheme was that while the benefit was pay based,
the employee had to fulfil the prescribed criteria to be eligible for
the benefits.
Service Law: Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme
– Essential features and distinction from – Held: Assured Career
Progression Scheme – Distinction – The noticeable feature of the
MACP Scheme is that three increments are to be granted to employees
on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service – According to the
MACP scheme, financial up-gradation is admissible on completion
of 10 years of continuous service -in the same grade pay – The
distinction between the ACP and the MACP scheme is not only with
respect to the number of benefits (i.e., two under the ACP scheme,
and three under the MACP scheme) but also that the former assured
the promotional grade, where the latter (MACP scheme) only assured
higher pay.
Delhi Development Authority – Scope of Application of MACP
upon its employees – DDA is an autonomous – statutory-organization
– It largely follows the Central Government’s policies, in respect of
pay and allowances, and other benefits for its employees, however,
any revision of pay-structure or revision in other terms and
conditions, of Central Government personnel cannot and do not
automatically apply to the DDA – It has to consider the new or
fresh scheme formulated by the Central Government, and adopt it,
if necessary, after appropriate adaptation, to suit its needs.
State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [1983]
2 SCR 287; Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah [1997] Supp (3) SCR 63; Shankarsan
Dash v. Union Of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991]
2 SCR 567; Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India
[1984] 3 SCR 252; Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan
Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421; Union of India v. R.K. Sharma
(2021) 5 SCC 579 – relied on.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
NARENDER KUMAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
Unio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.