Thursday, 15 October 2020

LTC SPECIAL CASH PACKAGE – A BOOST TO BILLIONAIRE BUSINESS MEN AT THE COST OF EMPLOYEES

The recently announced Leave Travel Concession (LTC) package according to me is a very beautifully decorated Trojan Horse or a sugar coated bitter pill for the government employees.  But definitely it is Manna from the heaven for the top billionaire business men at the cost of the employees. The main aim according to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 12-10-2020 is to compensate the Central Government Employees who are not in a position to avail LTC in the current Block of 2018-21 and side by side boost the consumption expenditure. But actually what is going to happen is little alarming.

This is how it works the sample as illustrated in the OM mentioned above: -

First of all employee has to encash 10 days leave (Pay Rs.1,38,500/-)            =  Rs.   54,015/-

Fare Value for 4 member family                                 20000 x 4        =  Rs.   80,000/-

Total value                                                                               =  Rs.1,34,015/-

To get this amount, how much the employee has to spend from his pocket in advance?

Full leave encashment Rs.54,015/- + 3 times fare value

= Rs.54,015/- + Rs. 2,40,000/- = Total Rs. 2,94,015/-.

In short you have to spend in advance, Rs. 2,94,015/- to get Rs. 2,94,015/- (the amount will vary according to the individual pay and entitlement of LTC).

Now let us go to the real issues:-

  1. For financing this amount of Rs.2,94,015,, definitely employee has to take a loan, break fixed deposit or use credit card. What is the financial implication of this? For credit card, on monthly basis, interest component comes to 3.2% including the GST. On an annual basis, interest comes to 38.4%.i.e., That is, every month you have to pay Rs.9408/- to the bank for financing this MEGA LTC MELA. That is the employee has to bear the annual effect of Rs.1,12,896/- forgetting Rs.80,000/- as LTC.( Leave can be encashed or availed later also. Hence it is not a grant or concession from Government).
  2. Another hitch is that, the employee has to purchase the items having GST rate @12% or above. That is, items such as processed items including pan masala etc and heavy consumer items and high fly items of which profit directly goes to these high fly billionaires and and pushing their share prices. That is why I say that this new scheme is really a trap to catch the employee and not a benefit either to the employee or to the common man who are actually affected by the COVID issue.
  3. Therefore, it is better to think 10 times before venture into this LTC HANGAMA.

N.B.:-

To read free part of my books:-

1.       ‘A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION’ in India, go to the below link and click “LOOK INSIDE” button:

http://www.amazon.in/FRAUD-INDIAN-CONSTITUTION-M-P-JOSEPH-ebook/dp/B00SQKTADY/

2.      “LTC RULES MADE EASY”, go to below link and enter “LOOK INSIDE”:

https://www.amazon.in/LTC-RULES-MADE-EASY--date-ebook/dp/B01JO66SLK

 

 

 

 


Saturday, 2 May 2020

സാലറി ഫ്രീസുചെയ്യലും, മാറ്റിവെക്കലും, ഓർഡിനൻസും, ഭരണഘടനാവിരുദ്ധം ആണോ?


ആദ്യം കേരള സംസ്ഥാന സർക്കാർ, തുടർന്ന് യൂണിയൻ ഓഫ് ഇന്ത്യ, അവരുടെ ജീവനക്കാരുടെ ശമ്പളം COVID - 19 പകർച്ചവ്യാധിയുടെ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തിൽ കുറയ്ക്കാനോ മാറ്റിവെക്കാനോ ശ്രമം തുടങ്ങി. ധാർമികതയുടെ മുഖംമൂടി അണിഞ്ഞുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇരുവരും ഇതിനൊരുങ്ങിയത്. എന്നാൽ ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടനയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാന മൂല്യങ്ങളെ കാറ്റിൽ പറത്തിയാണ് ഇരുവരും ഇത് ചെയ്തത്. ഇപ്പോൾ ഇന്ത്യയിൽ രാജഭരണമല്ല മറിച്ചു ഭരണഘടനയിൽ അടിയുറപ്പിച്ച ജനകീയ ഭരണമാണ് എന്ന് ഓർക്കേണ്ടിയിരിക്കുന്നു. പണ്ട് തിരുവിതാംകൂർ മഹാരാജാവ് യുദ്ധഭീഷണിയിൽനിന്നു രക്ഷപ്പെടാനോ മറ്റോ ഖജനാവ് ശ്രീ പദ്മനാഭസ്വാമിക്ക് സമർപ്പിച്ചു എന്ന് കേട്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഇതും ഏതാണ്ട് അതുപോലെതന്നെയായി. വിഷയത്തെപ്പറ്റി ഞാൻ 28-04-2020നു ഒരു ബ്ലോഗ് ഇംഗ്ലീഷിൽ എഴുതിയിരുന്നു -                      (https://www.centralemployeesnews.manjaly.net/2020/04/government-salary-freezing.html ). അതിനു ശേഷം കേന്ദ്ര സർക്കാർ ഫ്രീസ് ചെയ്യൽ പരിപാടി  മാറ്റി സംഭവനയാക്കി മാറ്റാനും സർക്കാർ ജീവനക്കാരിൽനിന്നും സമ്മതപത്രം വാങ്ങാനും തുടങ്ങി എന്നാണാണ് ചില പൊതുമാധ്യമങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നും അറിയാൻ കഴിഞ്ഞത്. എന്നാൽ കേരള സർക്കാർ വിട്ടു കൊടുക്കാൻ തയ്യാറല്ല. ഗവണ്മെന്റ് സർക്കുലർ ഹൈക്കോടതി സ്റ്റേ ചെയ്തപ്പോൾ അത് ഓർഡിനൻസ് എന്ന ഓമനപ്പേരിൽ  വീണ്ടും കൊണ്ടുവന്നു. എന്നാൽ ഇതും ശരിയാണോ തെറ്റാണോ എന്ന് ഒന്ന് നോക്കുന്നത് നല്ലതാണെന്നു തോന്നുന്നു.


പൊതുവായ സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ, സിവിൽ സർവീസ് നിയമപ്രകാരം ശമ്പളം തടഞ്ഞുവയ്ക്കുകയോ മരവിപ്പിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്നത് ഒരു ശിക്ഷാനടപടി ആയിട്ടാണ്.. അതിനായി നിയമങ്ങളും നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങളും ഉണ്ട്. അതിനു അതിന്റെതായ നിയമ വ്യവസ്ഥയുണ്ട്. അല്ലാതെ വെറും ഒരു സർക്കാർ സർക്കുലർ കൊണ്ടോ ഓർഡിനൻസ് കൊണ്ടോ ചെയ്യാവുന്നതല്ല.   നിയമങ്ങൾ പാലിക്കാതെ, ഒരു സർക്കാരിനും ശമ്പളം കുറയ്ക്കാൻ കഴിയില്ല. അല്ലെങ്കിൽ  ഇത് ഒരു സംഭാവനയായി അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ഒരു നിക്ഷേപമായി, ജീവനക്കാരന്റെ സമ്മതത്തോടെ ആയിരിക്കണം. അതിനാൽ, സർക്കാരിന്റെ നടപടികൾക്ക് നിയമപരമായ നിലപാടില്ല.

എന്നാൽ ചെയ്യാൻ പറ്റില്ലേ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ചാൽ പറ്റും എന്ന് തന്നെയാണ് മറുപടി. പക്ഷെ അതിനു അതിന്റെതായ നടപടി ക്രമങ്ങൾ  ഉണ്ട്.  ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടനയിൽ തന്നെ ഒരു വ്യവസ്ഥയുണ്ട്. അതായത്, ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 360 ലെ വ്യവസ്ഥകൾ പ്രകാരം, സാമ്പത്തിക അടിയന്തരാവസ്ഥ പ്രഖ്യാപിക്കുമ്പോൾ, കേന്ദ്ര സർക്കാരിന് ശമ്പളം കുറയ്ക്കാനും   സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ സംസ്ഥാന സർക്കാരുകളെ ശമ്പളം കുറക്കാൻ  അധികാരപ്പെടുത്താനും കഴിയും. എന്നാൽ ഇപ്പോൾ സ്ഥിതി വ്യത്യസ്തമാണ്. ഇപ്പോൾ സാമ്പത്തിക അടിയന്തരാവസ്ഥ പ്രഖ്യാപിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. അതിനാൽ നിർബന്ധിത മരവിപ്പിക്കലിനോ ശമ്പളത്തിന്റെ ഒരു ഭാഗം തടഞ്ഞുവയ്ക്കുന്നതിനോ ഒരു സർക്കാരിനും അധികാരമില്ല.

എന്നാൽ ഇക്കാര്യം കേരള സർക്കാരിന് അറിയില്ല എന്ന് വിചാരിക്കാൻ കഴിയുമോ? ഇല്ല. പിന്നെ എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് സർക്കാർ അതിനു തുനിയാതെ സൂത്രം കൊണ്ട് ഓട്ട അടക്കാൻ ശ്രമിക്കുന്നത്? അതിനു തക്കതായ കാരണം കാണിക്കണം. കോവിഡ് കോവിഡ് എന്ന് മാത്രം പറഞ്ഞാൽ പോരാ. മൊത്തം കടബാധ്യതയുടെ കണക്കു കാണിക്കണം. അവിടെയാണ് പ്രശ്നം. അതായതു, കോവിഡ് വരുന്നതിന്റെ മുൻപുള്ള കടബാദ്യതയും പിന്നീടുള്ള കോവിഡ് കൂടാതെയുള്ള കടബാധ്യതയും അതിനുള്ള വിശ്വസിക്കാവുന്ന ന്യായീകരണവും കൂടി വേണം. അതിനു സർക്കാരിന് കഴിയില്ല എന്ന പൂർണ ബോധ്യം സർക്കാരിന് ഉള്ളതുകൊണ്ടായിരിക്കണം നേരാം വഴിക്കു പോകുന്നതിൽനിന്നും സർക്കാരിനെ പിന്തിരിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്.

My home page: manjaly.net

My published books:   1. A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITION (E-book & Paperback)
                                    2. LTC RULES MADE EASY (E-book)

Tuesday, 28 April 2020

SALARY FREEZING AND WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL




First the Government of Kerala State, followed by the Union of India started reducing the salary of their respective Government employees in the background of COVID – 19 pandemic spread all over the world. I do not want to comment it from the point of morality etc. I am only expressing my thought with respect to the fact that whether the Central or State Government is legally and constitutionally authorized it or is it purely an illegal act being not a donation?

In general context, withholding or freezing the salary is an act of punishment under the civil service rules. For that there are rules and regulations. Without following these rules, no government can reduce the salary particularly when it is permanent in nature. It is also not deducted either as a donation or as a deposit, with the consent of the employee. Therefore, the action of the Government has no legal standing.

But there is a provision in the Constitution of India, that is, when there is a Financial Emergency is declared and is in force. Under the provisions of Article 360 of the Constitution of India, when there is a declaration of the Financial Emergency, the Central Government can reduce the salary that too following the procedures prescribed therein. In that situation it can also authorize the State Governments to do so. But now the situation is different. There is no Financial Emergency declared now.

In this circumstance, it is better for the Governments to go for voluntary donations instead of going for compulsory freezing or withholding part of the salary or to declare Financial Emergency if the conditions can be fulfilled.

M.P. JOSEPH. (My home page:- www.manjaly.net

My published books:   1. A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITION (E-book & Paperback)
                                    2. LTC RULES MADE EASY (E-book)




Friday, 3 May 2019

TRUE STORY OF AN EX- OFFICER


THE BOOK, "A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION" IS A REAL TRUE STORY OF AN EX- OFFICER OF THE INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT HEADED BY THE CAG OF INDIA. IT CONTAINS THE REBELLIOUS WORK OF THE AUTHOR AGAINST MANY MALPRACTICES PREVAILING IN THE DEPARTMENT. IT ALSO REVEALS THE REACTIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT LIKE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS ETC. AGAINST HIM AND HOW HE FOUGHT IT AND CONTINUED WITH THE REBELLION. THE BOOK IS MAINLY AIMED AT REVEALING THE TRUTH TO THE PUBLIC WHO TREAT CAG AS AN INCARNATION OF GOD, BUT IN REALITY IT IS NOT GOD BUT A FRAUD AS IS THE NAME OF THE BOOK INDICATES. IT IS ALSO AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT WHAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE PARLIAMENT AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES BY THE NAME 'CAG AUDIT REPORT' IS FULL OF FAKE AND IMAGINARY AUDIT OBJECTIONS AND GENUINE OBJECTIONS ARE NOT REPORTED EXCEPT IN CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED IN THE BOOK SUCH AS THE COALGATE SCAM, 2G SCAM ETC., WHICH CAME TO LIGHT ONLY AFTER DECADES OF ITS OCCURRENCES. PART I OF THE BOOK STARTS WITH THE HEADING 'CAG NOT EVEN AN ACCOUNTANT'. THEN AUTHOR IS UNFOLDING AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL INCIDENT FROM HIS OWN EXPERIENCE TO ESTABLISH THIS. FINALLY, CHAPTER 14 OF THE BOOK IS ENDING WITH, "IS IT NOT BOTH CAG AND THE MINISTRY IS FOOLING THE PARLIAMENT AND THUS THE PEOPLE OF INDIA? NOW IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (PAC) OF THE PARLIAMENT TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH THESE KINDS OF AUDIT OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES BROUGHT BEFORE THEM".

   [ Book "A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION" is available through AMAZON ]

Monday, 25 February 2019

MACP: UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

Many of my friends, personal as well as media, are asking me about the latest position of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the implementation of MACP scheme. Really speaking, I am not much interested in the issue because my monetary benefit is very nominal, since I was already promoted on 01-03-2006 and the effect is only for 2 months. I took up the issue, only because lakhs of employees are affected substantially by the wrong implementation of the 6th CPC and the order challenged is basically wrong. This is also not the first time I took such issues. I took such issues since the 4th Pay Commission onwards (See the newspaper cutting attached). In the present case, I had written a letter to the Respondents in the case as given below, which is self-explanatory.

        To know more about my published books, blogs on various subjects, see the box below:
  1. To read free part of my book  ‘A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION’ go to the below link and click “LOOK INSIDE” button: www.amazon.in/FRAUD-INDIAN-CONSTITUTION-M-P-JOSEPH-ebook/dp/B00SQKTADY/
  2. To read free part of my book LTC RULES MADE EASY, go to the following link:-https://www.amazon.in/LTC-RULES-MADE-EASY-date-ebook/dp/B01JO66SLK 
  3. My blogs on various subjects:
a.      www.facebook.com/manjaly.net/   
d.       www.cagreport.manjaly.net
g.       Home page: www.manjaly.net 


By Speed Post

From,                                                                           Date: 04-02-2019
Mr. M.P. JOSEPH
XXXX
XXXX
XXX Maharashtra.

To,
The Director General of Audit (Central)
Mumbai.
           
Subject:-          Writ Petition no. 1763/2013 before the BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reference:-      My letter dated 21-10-2018 on the above subject.(Copy enclosed)
Sir,
Kindly refer to the above Writ Petition in which you are the 4th Respondent. This is to remind you that as per the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, you have to pay the benefits as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from 15-10-2018. That period expired on 14-01-2019. But so far, you have not paid it. By clearly knowing the lethargy and leisureliness of Government Departments in implementing the Court order, the Hon’ble Court also made an inbuilt automatic balancing mechanism in the following words: “If, such benefits/consequential benefits are not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, then the respondents will liable to pay interest thereon @6% p.a. from the date such payments became due and payable, till the date of actual payment.” Accordingly, now you have to pay the same with interest @ 6% p.a. from when it was due and payable, i.e., 01-01-2006.
Further I am also to inform you that, if the payment with interest is not paid within a reasonable time, I will also initiate Contempt of Court Proceedings against you.
You are, therefore, requested to do the needful at the earliest.
Yours faithfully,
Encl:- copy as above.                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                                (M.P. JOSEPH)           
Copy of the letter addressed to the 4th Respondent is forwarded (without encl.) for information and necessary action to Respondents 1 & 2 in the above case, by speed post:-

  1. The Secretary, D.O.P.T., North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

  1. The Secretary, Min. of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.


                                                                                            SD/-
(M.P. JOSEPH)


THE SUNDAY TIMES OF INDIA, MARCH 28,1993


Tuesday, 16 October 2018

BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT DATED 15-10-2018 ON MACPS


Please refer to my earlier Blogs related to the effective date of  MACPS and my pending Writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Finally, the Court delivered the judgement on 15-10-2018. The 4 respondents are:- 
  1. D.O.P.T.                                 
  2. Min. Fin., Dep. of Expt.         
  3. Cent.Adm.Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.             
  4. D.G.A.(Central), Mumbai.    
Though the Judgement is based on my Personal Writ Petition, hope DOPT will apply it to all covered under its jurisdiction.




3. The challenge in this petition to the judgment and order dated 16th April, 2013 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the CAT'), dismissing the Original Application No. 145 of 2013 instituted by the petitioner seeking benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) with effect from 1st January, 2006 along with all other consequential benefits.

4. Mr. M. P. Joseph-the petitioner in person submits that the issue raised in the present petition is answered in favour of the petitioner by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Balbir Singh Turn and another (2018) 11 SCC 99 and therefore the CAT's impugned judgment and order may be set aside and the relief prayed for by him in his Original Application No. 145 of 2013 be granted.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the benefit under the MACP cannot be regarded as any part of the pay structure extended to the civilian employees and therefore the CAT was justified in denying relief to the petitioner. The learned Counsel submit that the recommendations of the pay commissions are not per-se binding upon the Government and the implementation, including the date from which such recommendations are to be implemented are matters in the discretion of the Government. Since, in the present case, implementation in respect of allowances was directed with effect from 1st September, 2008, the petitioner was not at all justified in seeking implementation with effect from 1st January, 2006. For these reasons the learned Counsel for the respondents submit that this petition may be dismissed.

6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

7. There is no dispute in the present case that the petitioner is eligible for receipt of benefits under the MACP. The only dispute is whether the petitioner is required to be granted the benefits under the MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 as claimed by him in his Original Application No. 145 of 2013 or whether such benefits are due and payable to the petitioner with effect from 1st September, 2008 as contended by and on behalf of the respondents.

8. The sixth pay commission made recommendations with regard to Armed Forces Personnel. By a resolution dated 30th August, 2008, the Central Government resolved to accept such recommendations with regard to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) subject to certain modifications. Clause (i) of this resolution as relevant and the same reads as follows:-

“(i) Implementation of the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension, with effect from 1-1-2006 and revised rates of allowances (except dearness allowances/relief) with effect from 1-9-2008;”

9. As noted earlier, the only issue which arises in the present petition is whether the benefit under MACP is to be regarded as a part of the pay structure of pay bands and grade pay or whether such benefit is to be regarded as “allowances (except dearness allowance/relief)”. If the benefit under MACP is to be regarded as a part of the pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, then obviously the petitioner is right in contending that such benefit will have to be extended to him with effect from 1st January, 2006 in terms of Clause (i) of the aforesaid resolution dated 30th August, 2008. However, if, as held by the CAT in the present case, the benefit of MACP is to be regarded as “allowances (except dearness allowance/relief)”, then the respondents would be right in their contention that such benefit is payable only with effect from 1st September, 2008.

10. The aforesaid was the precise issue which arose for consideration in case of Balbir Singh Turn (supra). The Apex Court upon consideration of the Central Government Resolution dated 30th August, 2008 along with Part-A of Annexure-I thereto has clearly held that the benefit under MACP is a part of the pay structure and therefore such benefit was payable from 1st January, 2006 and not from 1st September, 2008.

11. The reasoning is contained in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 ofMthe Apex Court ruling, which reads as follows :-
“6. The answer to this question will lie in the interpretation given to the Government Resolution, relevant portion of which has been quotedhereinabove. A bare perusal of Clause (i) of the Resolution clearly indicates that the Central Government decided to implement the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension with effect from 1-1-2006. The second part of the clause lays down that all allowances except the dearness allowance/relief will be effective from 1-9-2008. The AFT held, and in our opinion rightly so, that the benefit of MACP is part of the pay structure and will affect the grade pay of the employees and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a part of allowances. The benefit of MACP if given to the respondents would affect their pension also.
7. We may also point out that along with this Resolution there is Annexure I. Part A of Annexure I deals with the pay structure, grade pay, pay bands, etc., and Item 10 reads as follows:
10
Assured Career Progression Scheme for PBORs. The Commission recommends that the time bound promotion scheme in case of PBORs shall allow two financial upgradations on completion of 10 and 20 years of service as at present. The financial upgradations under the scheme shall allow benefit of pay fixation equal to one increment along with the higher grade pay. As regards the other suggestions relating to residency period for promotion of PBORs Ministry of Defence may set up an Inter-Services Committee to consider the matter after the revised scheme of running bands is implemented (Para 2.3.34)
Three ACP upgradations after 8, 16 and 24 years of service has been approved. The upgradation will take place only in the hierarchy of grade pays, which need not necessarily be the hierarchy in that particular cadre.

Part B of Annexure I deals with allowances, concessions and benefits and conditions of service of defence forces personnel. It is apparent that the Government itself by placing MACP in Part A of Annexure I was considering it to be the part of the pay structure.
8. The MACP Scheme was initially notified vide Special Army Instructions dated 11-10-2008. The Scheme was called the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for Personnel Below Officer Rank in the Indian Army. After the Resolution was passed by the Central Government on 30-8-2008 Special Army Instructions were issued on 11-10-2008 dealing with revision of pay structure. As far as ACP is concerned Para 15 of the said letter reads as follows :
“15. Assured Career Progression. In pursuance with the Government Resolution of Assured Career Progression (ACP), a directly recruited PBOR as a Sepoy, Havildar or JCO will be entitled to minimum three financial upgradations after 8, 16 and 24 years of service. At the time of each financial upgradation under ACP, the PBOR would get an additional increment and next higher grade pay in hierarchy.”
Thereafter, another letter was issued by the Adjutant General Branch on 3-8-2009. Relevant portion of which reads as follows :
“... The new ACP (3 ACP at 8, 16, 24 years of service) should be applicable w.e.f. 1-1-2006, and the old provisions (operative w.e.f. the Vth Pay Commission) would be applicable till 31-12-2005. Regular service for the purpose of ACP shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade.”
Finally, on 30-5-2011 another letter was issued by the Ministry of Defence, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“5. The Scheme would be operational w.e.f. 1-9-2008. In other words, financial upgradations as per the provisions of the earlier ACP scheme (of August 2003) would be granted till 31-8-2008.”
Therefore, even as per the understanding of the Army and other authorities up till the issuance of the letter dated 30-5-2011 the benefit of MACP was available from 1-1-2006.”
[emphasis supplied]

12. The CAT, when it delivered the impugned judgment and order dated 16th April, 2013 did not have the benefit of the ruling of the Apex Court in Balbir Singh Turn(supra) which was decided only on 8th December, 2017. The view taken by the CAT in the impugned judgment and order is now in direct conflict with the view taken by the Apex Court in Balbir Singh Turn (supra). Obviously, therefore, the impugned judgment and order will have to be set aside and the petitioner will have to be held to be entitled to receive the benefits under MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 together with all consequential benefits.

13. The contentions raised by and on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted, particularly, in the light of the ruling of the Apex Court in Balbir Singh Turn (supra). The Apex Court, in clear terms and in the precise context of Central Government's resolution dated 30th August, 2008 held that the benefit of MACP is a part of the pay structure and not merely some allowance. The Apex Court has held that the benefit of MACP affects not only the pay but also the pension of an employee and therefore, the same, is not an allowance but part of the pay itself. In terms of Clause (i) of the Central Government's resolution, admittedly, the pay component became payable with effect from 1st January, 2006 unlike the allowance component which became payable from 1st September, 2008.

14. Besides, this is not a case where the petitioner was insisting upon preponement of the date for implementation of the recommendations of the pay commission. The Central Government, vide resolution dated 30th August, 2008 had already accepted the recommendations with regard to POBR, no doubt subject to certain modifications. The relief claimed by the petitioner was entirely consistent with Clause (i) of the resolution dated 30th August, 2008, which in fact required the Government to extend benefits of revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension with effect from 1st January, 2006.

15. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with the following order:-

O R D E R
(a) The impugned judgment and order dated 16th April, 2013 made by the CAT is hereby set aside.

(b) The petitioner is held entitled to receive the benefit of MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 together with all consequential benefits.

(c) The respondents are directed to work out the benefits of MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 together with consequential benefits and to pay the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from today.

(d) If, such benefits/consequential benefits are not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, then the respondents will liable to pay interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date such payments became due and payable, till the date of actual payment.

(e) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall however be no order as to costs.

( M. S. SONAK, J. )                                                          ( A. S. OKA, J. )

N.B:-
[Some people expose scams after retirement. But I fought it while in service. My book "A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION" is history of my fight. To read free part of the e-book or to buy e-book or paperback online, go to Link: http://www.amazon.in/dp/9352353986 ]