1 2026:CGHC:22456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 19.03.2026 Order passed on : 13.05.2026 WPS No. 9449 of 2023 1 - Sulbhaji Azade S/o Shankar Rao Aged About 61 Years R/o Head Quarter Company, Cisf, Bsp Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Department, New Delhi 2 - Director General Cisf Central Industrial Security Force, Headquarter, 13 Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Pin 110003 3 - Inspector General Central Industrial Secutiry Force, Central Sector Headquarted, Utai, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force Unit Bhilai Steel Plant (C.G.) 5 - Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)] C.A.V. Order 1. The present petition has been filed as the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable action of the respondent authorities in denying the benefit of 3rd MACP to the petitioner, despite completion of 30 years of regular service. The petitioner contends that such denial is contrary to the provisions of the MACP Scheme as introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and further clarified by circular dated 05.10.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that under the said scheme, an employee is entitled to financial upgradation on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous service, irrespective of any punishment, provided the employee has not been granted regular promotions due to reasons not attributable to him. The scheme is intended to mitigate stagnation in service by granting monetary benefits in the form of higher grade pay, rather than actual promotion. Despite fulfilling all requisite conditions and being eligible for the 3rd MACP, the petitioner has been deprived of the said benefit without any justifiable reason. The action of the respondents, therefore, defeats the very object and purpose of the scheme and has resulted in financial loss and prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs : 3 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to give benefit of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service i.e from 22.03.2018. Further respondents may be directed to give all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, pensionary benefits, on the basis of re-fixation of pay with interest in the interest of justice. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, as canvased are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 21.03.1998 and continued to serve the department with diligence and sincerity until attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022. During his service tenure, the petitioner fulfilled all requisite conditions for career advancement. By order dated 05.02.2005, the petitioner was declared qualified for promotion to the post of Head Constable (HC/GD) after successfully completing the prescribed promotional cadre course. Despite having qualified for promotion at an early stage, the petitioner was not extended the benefit of promotion by the respondent authorities for reasons best known to them. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner submitted representations dated 4 20.06.2009 and 17.11.2014 before the competent authorities, requesting grant of promotional benefits, implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations, and financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. However, no effective action was taken on the said representations, and the petitioner continued to be deprived of the legitimate service benefits. Subsequently, pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the Central Government introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, which provided for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service, in cases where regular promotions were not granted. The said scheme was implemented in CISF with effect from 01.09.2008. In terms of the said scheme, the petitioner was granted certain benefits of MACP vide order dated 24.09.2015. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued Circular No. 9/2016 dated 05.10.2016, followed by a clarificatory memo dated 07.06.2017, wherein it was directed that cases of serving as well as retired personnel who had been denied financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme due to adverse entries or punishments be reviewed. It was further clarified that such cases would be reconsidered for grant of financial upgradations upon completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service. In furtherance of the said circular, the respondent Commandant issued a letter dated 10.10.2017, preparing a list of eligible personnel who had not been granted MACP benefits despite 5 completion of requisite service. The petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 7 in the category of review cases. It is pertinent to note that although the petitioner had completed 20 years of service on 27.10.2009, he was granted the benefit of 2nd MACP only with effect from 31.01.2016, thereby indicating delay and irregularity in extending the benefit. The petitioner, having already qualified for promotion and being medically fit, was eventually promoted from Constable to Head Constable (HC/GD) with effect from 11.09.2018 through a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). However, despite such promotion, the petitioner was not granted the corresponding pay scale of the promotional post on the ground that his pay had already been upgraded under the MACP Scheme, thereby depriving him of actual monetary benefits attached to the promotional post. The petitioner consistently raised grievances before the respondent authorities, highlighting that he was being treated unfairly as compared to his batchmates, who were receiving higher pay scales and appropriate benefits. It was also pointed out that despite qualifying for promotion in the year 2005, the petitioner was not considered in earlier DPCs held in 2016, 2017, and 2018, and was instead granted MACP benefits in an irregular manner in the years 2015 and 2017. Due to erroneous calculation and improper implementation of the MACP Scheme by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of the 3rd MACP upon completion of 30 years of service. The cumulative effect of such arbitrary actions 6 has resulted in financial loss and denial of legitimate service benefits to the petitioner, leading to the filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been subjected to illegal, arbitrary, and wholly unjustified action on the part of the respondent authorities, resulting in denial of legitimate service benefits. It is contended that the authorities have acted in a manner contrary to settled service jurisprudence and the governing policies, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have completely failed to appreciate the true object and purpose of the ACP/MACP Schemes. These schemes are welfare-oriented measures introduced to mitigate stagnation in service and to provide financial progression to employees who are deprived of regular promotions due to lack of promotional avenues. The schemes do not contemplate actual promotion to a higher post but provide financial upgradation in the form of placement in the next higher grade. The ACP Scheme envisaged financial upgradation on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, while the MACP Scheme, introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, provides for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service. The denial of such benefits to the petitioner defeats the very purpose of these schemes. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner 7 became entitled to the benefit of ACP upon completion of 12 years of service around the year 2000–2001; however, the respondent authorities failed to extend the said benefit, thereby depriving the petitioner of his rightful entitlement at the relevant time. It is further contended that after implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 01.09.2008, the eligibility criteria were revised and the MACP Scheme came into force, entitling personnel to financial upgradations at the prescribed intervals. Despite this, the petitioner was not granted timely and proper benefits under the scheme. It is also argued that the respondent authorities have ignored the mandate of the MACP Scheme, which clearly provides that the existence of minor or major punishment does not automatically disentitle an employee from financial upgradation, provided the employee has the requisite number of good Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) preceding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). In the present case, the petitioner fulfilled all such requirements, yet his case was not properly considered. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had successfully qualified the promotional cadre course for the post of Head Constable in the year 2005, at which point there was no punishment pending against him. It is emphasized that after the year 2005, the petitioner did not suffer any major punishment, and therefore there existed no valid impediment in granting him promotion or financial upgradation. Despite this, the petitioner was arbitrarily denied promotion for 8 several years. It is contended that the petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st MACP only in the year 2015 with retrospective effect from 01.09.2008, and the 2nd MACP was granted vide order dated 10.10.2017 with effect from 31.01.2016. However, these benefits were not granted in a timely or proper manner. The petitioner, having completed more than 30 years of service, specifically 34 years, 2 months, and 11 days, is clearly entitled to the benefit of 3rd MACP upon completion of 30 years of service, i.e., on 22.03.2018, which has been wrongly denied. It is also submitted that the petitioner continued to suffer the adverse consequences of past punishments even after the punishment period had lapsed, which is impermissible in law. As per service rules, an employee becomes eligible for consideration for promotion after a reasonable period, typically five years from the date of punishment. However, in the present case, the petitioner was repeatedly overlooked, which reflects arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. Learned counsel further argues that due to the illegal actions of the respondents, the petitioner continued to draw salary of a Constable throughout his service and even till the date of retirement, despite being otherwise eligible for higher benefits. The petitioner had discharged his duties diligently, including sensitive assignments such as service rifle duty, which require a high level of medical fitness. The petitioner was consistently found medically fit (Shape-I) and had successfully completed all requisite promotional courses. Lastly, reliance is placed upon the 9 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421, wherein the principles governing grant of MACP benefits have been settled. It is submitted that in light of the said judgment and the applicable rules, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd MACP. The denial of the 3rd MACP is thus illegal and unsustainable in law, warranting interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the present petition is misconceived, devoid of merits, and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. At the outset, it is submitted that the petitioner has incorrectly stated that he made a representation on 30.05.2022, whereas in fact, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17.05.2022 seeking compliance of the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6351/2021. The said representation was duly considered by the competent authority and was disposed of by a reasoned order dated 30.05.2022 in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. Thus, the grievance raised by the petitioner in this regard stands duly addressed. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed as many as 23 online grievances during his service tenure. Upon scrutiny, it was found that 11 grievances were repetitive in nature, 10 while the remaining grievances pertained to issues such as posting, financial matters, leave, housing, and promotion. All such grievances were duly examined and disposed of by the competent authorities from time to time. In fact, the grievance relating to posting had already been adjudicated upon by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and the directions issued therein were duly complied with. However, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed these facts in the present petition. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had also raised a grievance on 08.09.2019 regarding grant of 3rd MACP upon completion of 30 years of service. The said grievance was duly processed, and point-wise comments were furnished to the petitioner through proper channel. After due consideration, the grievance was closed on 23.10.2019. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondents failed to consider the petitioner’s claim. It is contended that the grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Schemes is governed by specific rules, guidelines, and eligibility criteria issued by the Government of India from time to time. Initially, under the ACP Scheme introduced in 1999, financial upgradation was subject to consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and fulfillment of prescribed benchmarks. In the petitioner’s case, upon completion of 12 years of service, his claim for 1st ACP was duly considered by the DPC; however, he was found “Not Yet Fit” due to failure to secure the required benchmark. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the said benefit as a matter of right. It is 11 further submitted that after implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, the MACP Scheme came into effect from 01.09.2008, providing for three financial upgradations upon completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service. The petitioner’s case was considered in accordance with the revised guidelines, and upon review, he was granted 1st MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 and 2nd MACP with effect from 31.01.2016 after being found fit by the DPC. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s claim for 3rd MACP has also been duly considered in accordance with the applicable rules and circulars, particularly CISF Circular No. 09/2016 dated 05.10.2016. As per the said circular, any delay in grant of earlier financial upgradations due to departmental proceedings or other valid reasons has a consequential impact on subsequent upgradations. In the present case, the petitioner’s service record reflects delays and deficiencies, including periods of “dies non” service and failure to meet prescribed benchmarks at relevant times. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was initially granted 3rd MACP, it was subsequently noticed that the screening committee had not properly accounted for the delay in grant of earlier MACPs. Accordingly, upon review by the DPC held on 30.01.2024, it was found that the petitioner was “Not Yet Fit” for grant of 3rd MACP with effect from 30.10.2019 due to a delay of 5 years, 10 months, and 9 days in grant of 2nd MACP. Consequently, the earlier grant of 3rd MACP was rightly modified in accordance 12 with rules. It is also submitted that the petitioner was considered for promotion in accordance with his seniority and service record. He was found unfit in earlier DPCs due to imposition of multiple penalties within the relevant period. However, upon improvement of his record, he was subsequently found fit and promoted to the rank of Head Constable (HC/GD) with effect from 11.09.2018. Therefore, there has been no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondents. Lastly, it is submitted that all grievances raised by the petitioner during his service tenure were duly considered and disposed of by the competent authorities, and no cause of action survives. The respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, policies, and circulars, and the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, this Court proceeds to examine the controversy involved in the present petition. 6. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 21.03.1998 and has rendered long years of service till his retirement on 31.05.2022. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 30 years of 13 service and has already been granted the benefit of 1st and 2nd financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme, though at a belated stage. The core issue which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of 3rd MACP upon completion of 30 years of service and whether the action of the respondent authorities in denying/withholding the same is justified. 7. From the material available on record, it is evident that the MACP Scheme has been introduced as a beneficial scheme with the object of granting financial progression to employees who have stagnated in service due to lack of promotional avenues. The scheme provides for financial upgradation on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner has completed 30 years of uninterrupted service and has already been extended the benefit of 1st and 2nd MACP. Thus, unless and until there exists any specific legal impediment or disqualification in granting the 3rd MACP, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefit. 8. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite criteria or that there were delays attributable to service record, do not appear to be substantiated from the pleadings and 14 documents brought on record. No cogent material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioner was ineligible for grant of 3rd MACP in terms of the applicable rules or that there existed any such disqualification which would disentitle him from consideration. On the contrary, the documents on record reflect that the petitioner’s case had been subjected to delays and irregular consideration at various stages, including belated grant of earlier MACPs. The reliance placed by the respondents on internal assessments and subsequent review proceedings does not inspire confidence in absence of clear and justifiable reasons supported by record. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s claim for grant of 3rd MACP deserves to be reconsidered in a fair and objective manner, strictly in accordance with the governing rules and policy. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 3rd MACP in accordance with law. While doing so, the authorities shall keep in mind that the petitioner has completed 30 years of service and has already been granted earlier financial upgradations, and unless any legal impediment is clearly established, the benefit ought not to be denied. 11. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the competent 15 authority within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of entitlement beyond the aforesaid observations, and the authorities shall take an independent decision in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 19.03.2026 13.05.2026 15.05.2026 15.05.2026