Employee can't claim ACP scheme over MACP scheme because it's better: SC

The Supreme Court has overturned a Delhi High Court ruling that directed the Delhi Development Authority to implement the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme on January 1, 2006, instead of Assured Career Progression (ACP) given to the employee.

The bench of Justices UU Lalit, SR Bhat, and Bela M Trivedi was deliberating on an SLP challenging the Delhi High Court's order directing the extension of MACP benefits to Delhi Development Authority employees beginning January 1, 2006.

DDA had appointed the respondent employees as regular work charged Malis starting January 3, 1985. He received the first financial upgrade after 12 years of regular service under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme on January 3, 1997. After 24 years of service, he was eligible for a second financial upgrade, which DDA did not grant. Since DDA introduced the MACP scheme on September 1, 2008, by an order dated October 6, 2009, the employees claimed they should have been granted a second ACP benefit as the claim of the second ACP benefit had accrued earlier.

Employees cannot claim a vested right in the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme, according to the Supreme Court. Employees requested a second upgradation under the previous ACP scheme, claiming it was more advantageous than the MACP scheme. This plea was dismissed by the court.

In May 2019, the Central Government, in place of the ACP Scheme, introduced the MACP Scheme through an office memorandum. Through a specific condition in that scheme, the MACP was made applicable from an earlier date, namely September 1, 2008.

The Court stated that, in the absence of strong and unequivocal indications in the later policy, a group of employees who may have benefited from the then-current regime or policy cannot assert that they have a right to the benefits under the superseded policy.

The bench said in The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority V. Narender Kumar & Ors. that it would allow the appeal.

"The fact that some employees would have benefited more from the ACP benefits if the MACP scheme had not been implemented at a later date is no reason to believe so and compel an executive agency to grant the claimed benefits."

The Court stated that the second ACP upgrade was not an automatic right because it was dependent on a number of external factors and that the employee could not assert a vested right to it.

Read more @ LiveLaw.in

Also read: Employee who declines regular promotion not entitled for ACP / MACP