K P S SURESH (student) 16 January 2010

Rules modified to reduce benefits

Union Govt. has introduced Modified Assured Career Progression scheme (MACP) for its employees replacing earlier ACP. The present MACP allows 3 financial upgradations in the gap of 10-20-30 years. Earlier one gives 2 ACPs in the pay scale of next higher post. For a large number of employees the old scheme is beneficial. Government has forcibly introduced a rule to the loss of such employees. Can the government do so ? Is it constitutional to reduce the existing benefits without giving an option to the employee. There are some judgements in this regard. Can someone help. Thanks.

Reply Follow

3 Replies

R.R. KRISHNAA (Legal Manager) 17 January 2010

It cannot be called wrong on the part of the government. The changed circumstances has necessitated the modified scheme to come into force. Depending upon the strength of the employees only, the scheme should be made and any scheme formulated by the government must really fit into the number of people. The MACP is nothing wrong. It is perfectly tailored and modified to the changed circumstances and for the present number of employees. How could it be called wrong. It is perfectly constitutiional and a good adminstrative decision. It is only a pure administrative decision and it does not prejudicially affect the employees at all

K P S SURESH (student) 17 January 2010

Thank u for that reply. But there are some judicial decisions by SC on the subject restraining the employer from reducing an existing benefit . I feel, the decision is prudent one for employees who are entering the service prospectively. Enforcing retrospective effect too is a good decision, provided a free option is given to the employees. What I am searching for is the CASE LAWS / RELATED JUDGEMENTS. Can some one help me ? In case , beloved - I am thankful to you. May His grace fill u.

K P S SURESH (student) 17 January 2010

Thank u for that reply. But there are some judicial decisions by SC on the subject restraining the employer from reducing an existing benefit . I feel, the decision is prudent one for employees who are entering the service prospectively. Enforcing retrospective effect too is a good decision, provided a free option is given to the employees. What I am searching for is the CASE LAWS / RELATED JUDGEMENTS. Can some one help me ? In any case , beloved - I am thankful to you. May His grace fill u.