Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Govind R. Mashelkar, was initially appointed as a Round Forester on 02.12.1974 in the Forest Department of Government of Goa. He was promoted to Range Forest Officer on ad-hoc basis on 22.05.1985, which was regularized retrospectively. In 1998, he was granted a benefit under the Time Bound Promotional Scheme (TBPS) in the scale of Assistant Conservator of Forest with effect from 29.05.1997. Subsequently, the Central Government introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) in 2009, providing three financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years of continuous regular service. The Petitioner was promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forest on 13.05.2013. On 20.06.2014, having completed 30 years of service, he applied for the 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS. His representation was forwarded by the Deputy Conservator of Forest recommending his case, but the higher authorities did not respond. The Petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the refusal. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner had already availed a benefit under TBPS, which should be set off against MACPS upgradations. The Court analyzed the schemes and held that TBPS and MACPS are separate schemes with different objectives; TBPS is for stagnation in the same post, while MACPS provides career progression. The Court found that the Petitioner had only one promotion and was entitled to the 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned communication, and directed the Respondents to grant the 3rd Financial Upgradation with consequential benefits within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - MACPS - Financial Upgradation - Set off - The issue pertains to denial of 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS to a government servant who had earlier availed a benefit under TBPS - Court held that TBPS and MACPS are distinct schemes with different objectives, and benefits under TBPS cannot be set off against MACPS upgradations - Held that the Petitioner is entitled to 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS (Paras 1-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the denial of 3rd Financial Upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) to the Petitioner, on the ground that he had already availed a benefit under the Time Bound Promotional Scheme (TBPS), is legal and justified.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 20.06.2014 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to grant the 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS to the Petitioner with all consequential benefits within eight weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- MACPS
- Financial Upgradation
- Time Bound Promotional Scheme
- Set off
- Stagnation
- Service Benefits
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 159
WRIT PETITION NO.965 OF 2016
M.S. SONAK, BHARAT P. DESHPANDE
Mr H.D. Naik, Mr A.D. Naik, Ms Amira Razaq
The State of Goa, The Department of Forest
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging refusal to grant 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the communication denying 3rd Financial Upgradation and direction to grant the same with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was denied 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS despite completing 30 years of service, on the ground that he had already availed a benefit under TBPS.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner's representation for 3rd Financial Upgradation was forwarded by Deputy Conservator of Forest recommending his case, but higher authorities did not respond, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Issues
Whether the denial of 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS to the Petitioner, on the ground that he had already availed a benefit under TBPS, is legal and justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he completed 30 years of service and was entitled to 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS, and that TBPS benefit cannot be set off against MACPS.
Respondents argued that the Petitioner had already availed a benefit under TBPS, which should be set off against MACPS upgradations.
Ratio Decidendi
The Time Bound Promotional Scheme (TBPS) and the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) are distinct schemes with different objectives. TBPS is meant to address stagnation in the same post, while MACPS provides financial upgradations at regular intervals for career progression. Therefore, benefits availed under TBPS cannot be set off against MACPS upgradations. The Petitioner, having completed 30 years of service and having only one promotion, is entitled to the 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, refusal to grant 3rd Financial Upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), is challenged.
It is the main contention of the Petitioner that inspite of completion of 30 years of service, he was granted only one promotion and that Respondent denied his legitimate right for grant of 3rd Financial Upgradation as per MACPS, which is completely illegal, arbitrary, and therefore, needs to be rectified.
The Petitioner was initially appointed in the post of Round Forester on 02.12.1974 in the Forest Department of Government of Goa.
The Central Government, somewhere in the year 2009, recommended in its 6th Central Pay Commission Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) with further modification to grant three Financial Upgradations at the interval of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service.
The Petitioner contends that on 13.05.2013, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4600.
As on 20.06.2014, the Petitioner had put in required number of years in service for grant of 3rd Financial Upgradation as per MACPS.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed representation dated 23.06.2014 for 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACPS. The representation was forwarded by Deputy Conservator of Forest recommending his case, but no response from higher authorities. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.965 of 2016 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petition was heard and decided on 14.06.2023.
