Court affirms that the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme does not violate Article 14; emphasizes judicial restraint in policy matters.
In a significant judgment delivered on July 1, 2026, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), introduced by the Government of India based on the Sixth Central Pay Commission's recommendations. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the scheme's constitutional validity, stating it does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitions, filed by various government employees, contended that the MACPS arbitrarily restricts financial upgradation to the next higher Grade Pay instead of the Grade Pay corresponding to the next promotional post, and unfairly applies retrospectively from September 1, 2008. The petitioners argued that the scheme reintroduced financial stagnation, which the earlier Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) had aimed to eliminate.
The court, however, emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters, stating that courts do not sit in appeal over the merits of government policy decisions. The decision-making process can only be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness, illegality, or constitutional infirmity, none of which were demonstrated in this case.
The judgment reiterated that the MACPS is a rational policy decision intended to address systemic anomalies and ensure uniformity across departments. The court noted that the scheme's adoption followed the expert recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which introduced significant reforms to the pay structure, including the establishment of running pay bands to mitigate stagnation and ensure a more flexible progression model.
Rejecting the petitioners' argument on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the court clarified that legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right and cannot be used to challenge policy changes in fiscal and service matters.
The court also addressed the retrospective application of the MACPS, affirming its validity based on settled judicial precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court in similar cases. The operational framework of the MACPS, which provides financial upgradations at 10, 20, and 30 years of service, was upheld as a constitutionally valid policy choice.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions, asserting that the MACPS does not infringe upon Article 14 and that the policy decision is grounded in a rational and expert-backed framework. The court's judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in reviewing policy decisions, particularly those based on expert body recommendations.
Bottom line:-
The Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), introduced by the Government based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The policy is intended to address systemic anomalies, ensure uniformity, and mitigate financial stagnation, and the Courts cannot interfere in policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, illegal, or manifestly infringe constitutional guarantees.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS)
Ram Naresh Tiwari v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933193
