Grant of modified assured career progressive scheme - reg.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 08 January 2025
This query is : Open
Respected Learned Experts, I am a Central Government Servant governed by CCS Rules. I am entitled for MACP benefits in 2008 itself. I had faced two criminal cases in the year 2009 and 2010 (cognizance taken by the court) and one departmental enquiry in 2011. In 2009 case, I was acquitted and 2010 case, I was convicted for which an appeal is lying before the High Court. Before conviction in 2010 case, I was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirment in the departmental enquiry in the year 2017. My MACP benefits refused by the department in August 2024 citing the above cases. All these cases were occured subsequent to my date of entitlement of MACP. Hence, I had filed an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and appearing as Party In-person. The tribunal is questioning the delay. I had filed OA within two months of the receipt of the department order. However, the Tribunal is observing the the cause of action araised in 2008 itself, it is too late to admit the OA. Becuse of the refusal of MACP, my salary and pension receiving right now is affected and therefore it has a recurring nature of injustice. The Tribunal adjourned the case with direction to file the reasons for the delay from 2008 onwards. Kindly guide me whether the cause of action arise from the due date of elgibility of MACP or from the date of the order passed by the department? Please also clarify whether I have any immunity on the basis of the recurring loss in mopnthly pension which I presume has resulted in creating fresh cause of action every month?
As I am appearing as Party In person, I request the Hon'ble Forum kindly to guide in the matter and judgment if any in the matter may also be shared please.
Thanks in anticipation.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 09 January 2025
The MACP Scheme was introduced on 01.09.2008. As of 01.09.2008, did you complete 10 years of service without promotion? When did the criminal case file either before or after the orders were received under MACP?
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 10 January 2025
You are required to move MA explaining the circumstances for condonation of delay stating all above facts.
Whether there is any impact of conviction for consideration of MACP, you are required to research and convience the department as well as Tribunal
It is better to consult and engage a local prudent lawyer for proper analyses of facts, professional advise and necessary proceeding to protect your interest.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 10 January 2025
Respected Learned Expert Shri KVK Satyanrayana sir, I had completed 10 years of service without any promotion in October 2007 itself. But as on 01.09.2008, I was under suspension and my suspension was revocked in April 2009. Although, I had been acquitted in the criminal case in the year 2011, my suspension period was not regularied by the Competent Authority statong that I was facing another criminal case filed in the year 2010 and departmental proceedings pending whihc was initiated in 2011. The rejection of MACP by the Authority was passed only in the year 2024 that too after the intrevention of the Tribunal which has directed the Authoirty to dispose my representation for claim of MACP. Please guide me. Respected Learned Expert Shri
Dr. J. Vashista, much obliged by your response and once again thank you very much for sparing your valuable time for reply the query.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 10 January 2025
Since your suspension period is not regularized as of the date of MACP, you are not eligible for MACP, in my view.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 11 January 2025
Suspension of an employee cannot continue for such a long time as stated by you, find out some local prudent lawyer practicing service matter to get the suspension revoked and regularised, which shall help to getting MACP as well.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 12 January 2025
The plea of deptt is not tenable. Prima-facie you raised issue late. Was any representation pending in between.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 12 January 2025
Much obliged by the response of the Learned Experts. Thank you very much to one and all once again.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 13 January 2025
a claim for Assured Career Progression (MACP) can be denied if there is a significant delay in filing. The doctrine of delay and laches can bar claims if there is an inordinate delay in filing. For example, in the case of Maya Verma VS Union Of India - Rajasthan (2022), a petition for service benefits under the MACP scheme was dismissed due to a significant delay of over 30 years.
The limitation period for MACP claims can be influenced by factors such as the communication of adverse entries and the nature of the claim (recurring cause of action). Delay and laches can bar claims if not filed within a reasonable time frame.
Un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be used against employees in MACP cases.
Courts are inclined to re-examine claims that were dismissed on limitation grounds if the dismissal was not justified.
Union of India VS Neelu Kumari, D/o-Late Pachu Sao - Jharkhand (2023)
Maya Verma VS Union Of India - Rajasthan (2022)
Union of India VS Harish Chandra Singh - Rajasthan (2013)
Md. Nasimuddin, Son of Md. Nisaruddin VS State of Bihar - Patna (2017)
NAFE SINGH VS INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY - Delhi (2017)]
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 14 January 2025
The concept of limitation may be inapplicable in the instant case since it is recurring every passing moment / day / month / year as it affects pay and allowances of concerned employee, please correct me if I am wrong.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 14 January 2025
Much obliged by the response of Learned Expert Shri T. Kalaiselvan. No adverse entries were communicated to me till my retirement. Furhter, the High Court of Madras has passed an order last week to regularise the period of suspension. Shri T. Kalaiselvan sir, I shall go thropugh the case referred by you and come back please. Hence my entitlement of MACP from 01.09.2008 may arise only after the order of High Court (I presume, please confirm my interpretation). Learned Expert Shri Dr. J.C. Vashista, I am also of the same opinion that the pay and pension are recurring events and therefore fresh cause of action arise every month. I was informed by one of my colleague that there is a Supreme Court judgment for the pay pension limitation which arise evey month. I hope that any Learned Expert having come across such a judgment may please be shared to me.
