MACP Scheme Benefits Must Be Granted Along With Pension Benefits To Employees Who Got Deemed Extension Of Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The petitioners served in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). They had superannuated on attaining the age of 57 years. In accordance with the Judgment of Delhi High Court in Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police and Ors., which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) by an Order dated 19.08.2019 increased the age of superannuation for the regular cadre of Para Military Forces, including Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), to 60 years.

Post the Order of the MHA, the petitioners were treated to have served till the age of 60 years. Therefore, the petitioners were granted notional increment and consequential revision of pension. However, the petitioners were denied the benefit of Senior Time Scale (STS) on the ground that they have not completed four years of regular service. The Respondents rejected the request of the Petitioners for grant of Senior Time Scale on the ground that they did not fulfil the 04 years' service criteria in the Junior Time Scale, i.e., the grade of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) in terms of the OM dated 04.04.2001 and 06.05.2002 by virtue of which the grant of Senior Time Scale is regulated.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing of the rejection order and for directing the respondents to issue fresh PPO orders in respect of the Petitioners, with all consequential benefits.

It was submitted by the petitioners that the issue raised in the petition had been adjudicated in the judgment dated 19.12.2024 passed in Jai Singh Saharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Delhi High Court had already ruled in favor of similarly placed personnel, holding that such officers should be treated as having served until the age of 60 years for all service-related benefits. On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that the petitioners have not completed four years of regular service therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of Senior Time Scale.

Findings of the Court

The case of Jai Singh Saharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein, the MHA issued an Office Order dated 27.01.2021, extending the benefit to all the officials who had retired or superannuated on attaining the age of 57 years on or after 31.01.2016. The petitioners were accordingly granted the benefit by giving them the three annual increments which they would have otherwise earned if they had remained in service and not superannuated upon attaining the age of 57 years.

It was held by the court that the benefit under the MACP, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, was extended on the completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service, respectively. Where officials had completed these period between the ages of 57 years and 60 years, however, they superannuated at the age of 57 years in accordance with the then prevailing provisions, and were consequently not allowed to complete 10/20/30 years of service. Then as a consequential relief, such officials would be deemed to have continued in service.

It was held by the court that the petitioners are entitled to the grant of the benefit under the MACP Scheme by presuming that the officials completed service of 10/20/30 years due to the extension of the age of their superannuation to the age of 60 years.

It was directed by the court to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as having superannuated at the age of 60 years. Further to treat the intervening period from 57 years to 60 years as period spent on regular service. It was held by the court that if the petitioners are found entitled to the grant of the Senior Time Scale, the relief should be released to the petitioners and their pension be accordingly modified with a retrospective effect. It was directed by the court to carry out the exercise of the Order within a period of twelve weeks.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Name : Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

Case No. : W.P.(C) 8085/2022

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ankur Chhibber, Anshuman Mehrotra, and Nikunj Arora, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondents : Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC with Dipanshu Sharma, Adv. with SI/GD Shiv Kr. Singh and ASI/GD Sanjiv Kr. Singh, C.R.P.F.