EX HC/GD PRAHALAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are by former employees of the Border Security Force ("BSF") who retired either as Head Constables (HC) or Constable (General Duty) ("GD"). The grievance in all these petitions is that the Petitioners have not been given the benefit of the financial upgradation as a result of the Annual Career Progression (ACP) Scheme from the date it was due and Modified Assured Progression ("MACP") Scheme from 1st January 2006. The prayers in each of the petitions are more or less similar. They broadly are as follows:

(2.) The stand of the Respondents has been that the benefit of the existing ACP scheme of August 1999 was allowed up to 31st August 2008. The MACP Scheme was issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for Persons Below Officer Rank (PBOR) consequent upon the recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and that it was accepted by the Government for implementation in the CAPFs only with effect from 1 st September 2008. The contention is that civilian and PBOR personnel were governed by two different resolutions and two different MACP schemes.

(3.) In order to understand the issue that arises in these petitions, the background in which they arise needs to be examined. The PBORs first approached the Armed Force Tribunal ("AFT") which held that the MACP would be available to them with effect from 1 st January, 2006. The appeal of the Union of India against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn, 2018 AIR(SC) 206 by holding that the grant of ACP is part of the pay structure and that it affects the pay of the employee, inasmuch as such employee gets a higher grade pay even though it should be in the same pay band. The stand of the Union of India that the MACP would be applicable to PBORs only from 1st September, 2008 was rejected by the Supreme Court.