Dismissed

Ranjit Singh v. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.

Delhi HC8 Apr 2026CONT.CAS(C)/774/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed petitions for contempt seeking punishment for non-compliance with a division bench order directing grant of MACP benefits. The respondent submitted that the Supreme Court in Mohanan Nair set aside the basis for such benefits, rendering the claim untenable. The petitioner sought withdrawal with liberty. The court granted withdrawal and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings; petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Ranjit Singh Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 774/2021

¶4

RANJIT SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Mr. Anushman Mehrotra, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRI AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC . Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with Insp. Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 08.04.2026

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present petitions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeks the following prayers: -

¶13

“i. Pass an order issuing the contempt against the Respondents and punish them in accordance with law for the contempt of the judgment dated 18.01.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 8004/2020; and

¶14

ii. Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶15

Vide judgment dated 18.01.2021 in W.P. (C) 8004/2020, and other connected matters, learned Division Bench of this Court had passed the following directions: -

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 11:17:19

¶18

“5. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to primarily seek a mandamus to the respondents to grant the benefit of the First and Second financial upgradation under the ACP scheme with effect from completion of 12 years and 24 years and the third MACP on completion of 30 year of service. It is claimed that wherever the second Financial upgradation is granted under the second MACP, the same hall be granted in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 w.e.f. 01st January, 2006 and wherever 20 years have been completed or the dates mentioned in the prayer clause along with consequential benefits including arrears. The petitioners' claim is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr ., Civil Appeal Diary No.3744/2016 along with other cases decided on 08th December, 2017. The petitioners also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C) No.3549/2018 decided on 01st May, 2019, Jaswant Singh v. Union of India. , WP(C) No. 22 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2015 as well as Jai Pal Singh v. Union of India decided on 06.09.2013 in WP(C) No. 5539/2015 and Indian Ex-Bordermen Movement and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 03.02.2020 in WP(C) No. 7447/2019.

¶19

As admittedly there is no interim order passed by the Supreme Court in any of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India in similar matters, we dispose of the present writ petition in similar terms as passed in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 i.e. a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim in the light of the judgments in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. (supra) and Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr (supra) , Union of India & Ors. vs. M. V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 as well as Jaswant Singh v. Union of India., WP(C) No. 22 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2015 as well as Jai Pal Singh v. Union of India decided on 06.09.2013 in WP(C) No. 5539/2015 and Indian ExBordermen Movement and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 03.02.2020 in WP(C) No. 7447/2019 and to dispose of the representations of the petitioners positively within twelve weeks from today. It is clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set asides the order passed by the Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr (supra) and/or any other similar matter, then the present order shall abide by the order( s) of the Apex Court.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, the present batch of writ petitions

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 11:17:19

¶23

along with pending applications stand disposed of.”

¶24

Reply affidavit dated 01.12.2021 has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein, it has been stated as under: -

¶25

“5. It is submitted that in Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020 entitled ''Union of India versus M.V. Mohanan Nair" (hereinafter” referred to as "M.V. Mohanan Nair "), the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 05.03.2020 has allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India. It is further submitted that in M. V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as per the prevailing Rules of the Modified Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as "MACP") Scheme, financial upgradation is to be granted to immediate next higher Grade Pay and not the Grade Pay in the next promotional hierarchy. It is further submitted that it is clear that the earlier ACP Scheme was withdrawn w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and the same stood superseded by the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. Hence, the prayer of the Petitioners for sanctioning of MACP benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is not at all tenable and not in accordance with the relevant Rules on the subject. It is further submitted that moreover, the ACP and MACP Schemes cannot run concurrently. A copy of the Judgment dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020 entitled " Union of India versus M. V. Mohanan Nair” is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R- 1.

¶26

It is submitted that in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held as under:-

¶27

29. ... When the expert body like Pay Commission has comprehensively examined all the issues and representations and also took note of interdepartmental disparities owing to varying promotional hierarchies, the court should not interfere with the recommendations of the expert body. When the government has accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission and has also implemented those, any interference by the court would have a serious impact on the public exchequer.

¶28

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 11:17:19

¶29

51. The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its , recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference. …

¶30

It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15572 of 2019 entitled ''Union of India versus R.K. Sharma and Others" vide Order dated 28.04.2021, has categorically held as under:-

¶31

8. In M. V. Mohanan Nair ( supra ) a three Judge Bench of this Court considered the ACTS as well as the MACPS to hold that the schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes which were brought into force to relieve stagnation. This Court was of the considered view that the Respondent therein were entitled only to the benefit of next grade pay in the pay band and not to the benefit of grade pay of next promotional post. As the MACPS is a matter of Government policy pursuant to the recommendations made by the Pay Commission, this Court refused to accept submissions of the employees that MACPS should be made applicable w.e.f 01.01.2006.

¶32

9. In view of the judgment of this Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Respondents and other similarly situated employees are entitled for financial upgradation under MACPS only to the next grade pay and not to the grade pay of next promotional post. It is clear from the resolution dated 30.08.2008 that the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission was accepted by the Government and was made effective from 01.01.2006 in respect of civilian employees with regard to revised scales of pay and dearness

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 11:17:19

¶35

allowances. In so far as the revised allowances other than dearness allowance, recommendation of 6th Pay Commission were given effect from 01.09.2008. The judgment in M. V. Mohanan Nair (supra) clinchs the issue. Benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Schemes are incentives and are not part of pay. The resolution dated 29.08.2008 is made effective from 01.09.2008for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA which includes financial upgradation under ACP & MACP Schemes. Therefore, the Respondents and other similarly situated officers are not entitled to seek implementation of the benefits of MACPS w.e.f 01.01.2006 according to the resolution dated 29.08.2008. Moreover, the implementation of MACPs by granting financial upgradation only to the next grade pay in the pay band and not granting pay of the next promotional post w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would be detrimental to a large number of employees, particularly those who have retired. We find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that uniform implementation of MACPs for civilian employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would result in large scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess.

¶36

10. In view of above, we set aside the judgment of the High court and allow these Appeals. Civil Appeal No. 1592 of2021 (@SLP(C) No. 12033 of2020) Civil Appeal NO. 1597 of2021 (@SLP(C) No. 12640 of2020) Civil Appeal No. 1600 of2021 (@SLP (C) No. 15772 of2020) Civil Appeal Nos. 1603-1609 of2021 (@NLP(C) Nos. 913-919 of 2021) Civil Appeal No. 1599 of 2021 (@SLP© No. 15150 of 2020) "

¶37

A copy of the Order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15572 of 2019 entitled ''Union of India versus R.K. Sharma and Others" is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-2.

¶38

It is submitted that from the above, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also squarely denied interfering in the recommendations / policy matters of expert body, i.e.. Pay

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 11:17:19

¶41

Commission. It is further submitted that the same is applicable to the present case as well, since the Petitioner with the Writ Petition had challenged the recommendations / policy matters of same expert body, i.e.. Pay Commission, despite their pension having been revised according to the provisions of the Pay Commission / Department of Personnel & Training and Government of India Orders.”

¶42

As noted hereinabove, learned Division Bench while passing the directions had categorically clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set aside the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (supra) and/or any other similar matter, then the said order passed by learned Division Bench shall abide by such order(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) was rendered in similar situation, and in view of the same, he seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as available in law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum.

¶44

Leave and liberty granted.

¶45

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.

¶46

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

¶48

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶49

APRIL 8, 2026/ kr

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 11:17:19

Ranjit Singh v. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Narayen Vs Rachna Shah and Ors.

Ram Bhajan Yadav Vs Neeraj Semwal & Anr.

Bmo Trust Company Vs Ranjan Kumar

Harbhajan Singh Vs Arvind Singh

M/S Himalaya Communications Ltd. Vs a K Puthia

Kamlesh Vs the Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

D S Kundu Vs Ashok Kumar Navet

Rohit Gahlot Vs Dev Kumar Executive Engineer & Ors.

Suresh Khandelwal Vs Anurag Gupta HUF

Harbhajan Singh Vs Arvind Singh

Satvir & Anr. Vs Surender Singh

Aravali Hydro Power Project Vs Ms Thakur

Satish Kumar Gupta Vs Kamla Devi