The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order denying financial upgradation and pension revision. The court held that disciplinary rules requiring a clean record precluded eligibility under MACPS despite arguments regarding suitability for promotion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:16.06.2023 Delivered on: 23.06.2023 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
V.Sobana Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India Rep. by the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Police Division-II (Resettlement and Welfare Directorate North Block, New Delhi-110 001) 2.The Director General CRPF, CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-110 003 3. The Inspector General of Police Southern Sector CRPF Road No.10 C.Jubilee Hills New MLA/MPs Colony Gayathri Hills Hyderabad-500033 1/11
GC, CRPF
4.The Dy. Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF Po:Hakimpet Rangareddy (A.P) Pincode No.500 078
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
5.The Dy. Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF, Avadi Chennai-600 065
6.The Commandant 90 Bn, CRPF Anantnag Jammu & Kashmir
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.08.2010 issued by the 6th respondent in pursuance of the proceedings No.P.VII-5/2010-90-EC-I and quash the same in petitioner concerned and direct the respondents to grant 1st and 2nd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) to the petitioner and revise the basic pension.
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Meenakshi
For Respondents : Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, CGSC
2/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings on the file of the 6th respondent dated 27.08.2010 and direct the respondents to grant first and second financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) and to consequently revise the basic pension for the petitioner.
2.The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition is that he joined the Central Reserve Police Force as a Constable on 05.09.1988. He was deployed at various places through out the country and he voluntarily retired from service with effect from 01.01.2010. The petitioner was sanctioned basic pension of Rs.4670/- and residual pension of Rs.2,802/- vide pension payment order dated 30.08.2010. Since the petitioner was awarded lesser pension and that too incorrectly he made enquiries and also submitted a representation on 15.10.2010 to the 5th respondent. As there is no reply to the said representation the petitioner sent an application dated 01.11.2013 under the provisions of the Right to
3/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
Information Act. As there is no compliance, he sent another application dated 24.02.2014 requesting for further information/documents and after obtaining the documents, the petitioner found that the respondents have not given satisfactory information regarding his basic query of sanctioning the correct amount of pension to him. The petitioner places reliance on MACPS which is operational from 01.09.2008. The scheme contemplates grant of three financial upgradations on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years respectively, of continuous and regular service. However, the said financial upgradation was with certain conditions. According to the petitioner he was eligible for the first and second financial upgradation. However, the 4th respondent vide order dated 15.07.2010, held that he was not entitled for annual increment for 01.07.2006 and 01.07.2007 due to stoppage of increment for three years, for the reason that there was a major punishment awarded to the petitioner in the preceding five years. According to the petitioner he was not having any currency of punishment or any pending departmental enquiry against him and therefore the reasoning of the 4th respondent was erroneous. Further, according to the petitioner, DPC rules are
4/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
also clear in stating that punishment would not be a bar in assessing suitability for promotion. The 6th respondent, despite all these submissions made by the petitioner rejected the same and passed the impugned order on 27.08.2010, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to financial upgradation. The said order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition, mainly on the ground that the prescribed bench mark mentioned in Annexure I of the scheme would not apply for grant of financial upgradation under the scheme and moreover the case of the petitioner was promotion on non selection basis and therefore the impugned order passed is in violation of DPC Rules.
counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 made his oral submissions.
petitioner and Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, CGSC appearing for the respondents.
5/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
6/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
only in standard hierarchy of grade pay/pay levels and not in promotional hierarchy.
7/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
“13. Punishment no bar in assessing suitability for promotion:- As officer whose increments have been withheld or who has been reduced to a lower stage in the time scale, cannot be considered on that account to be ineligible for promotion to the higher grade as the specific penalty of withholding promotion has not been imposed on him. The suitability of the officer for promotion should be assessed by the DPC as and when occasions arise for such assessment in assessing the suitability, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of the general service record of the officer and the fact of the imposition of the penalty, he should be considered suitable for promotion. However, even where the DPC considers that despite the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer should not be actually promoted during the currency of the penalty.”
considering a person who has been punished being considered for assessing his suitability for promotion. There is absolutely no reference to the MACP 8/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
Scheme in this paragraph relied on by the petitioner. The proceedings of the Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi, (Ministry of Home Affairs) dated 28.05.2021 also does not in any way come to the aid the Writ Petitioner. The said proceedings pertain only to the issue of granting benefits under MACPS in promotional hierarchy or standard hierarchy.
benefits of MACPS to the petitioner and for all the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.
23.06.2023.
Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No kpr
9/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
To
1.The Secretary Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Police Division-II (Resettlement and Welfare Directorate North Block, New Delhi-110 001)
2.The Director General CRPF, CGO Complex Lodhi Road,New Delhi-110 003
4.The Dy. Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF Po:Hakimpet Rangareddy (A.P) Pincode No.500 078
5.The Dy. Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF, Avadi Chennai-600 065
6.The Commandant 90 BN, CRPF Anantnag Jammu & Kashmir
10/11
W.P.No.2287 of 2016
P.B.BALAJI, J., kpr
Pre-delivery order in W.P.No.2287 of 2016
23.06.2023
11/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner with a major punishment in the preceding five years is eligible for financial upgradation under the MACPS scheme.
Whether the grant of MACPS benefits is barred by departmental rules requiring a good record of service free of major punishments.
V.Sobana Kumar
The Union of India
The Director General CRPF
The Inspector General of Police Southern Sector CRPF
The Dy. Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF, Po:Hakimpet
The Dy. Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF, Avadi
P.B.BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
