Hindi Instructor's Move to Hindi Officer Was Not a Promotion, Rules Meghalaya HC; MACP Benefits to Flow From 1984 Service Date

The Meghalaya High Court upheld a CAT order directing three MACP financial upgradations to a NEPA employee, rejecting the Union of India's argument that his 1998 appointment as Hindi Officer constituted a promotion barring earlier upgradation benefits.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya, comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh, on 5 June 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that had directed three financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme to a North Eastern Police Academy (NEPA) employee. The court found that the transition from Hindi Instructor to Hindi Officer in 1998 was not a promotion in any meaningful sense—the original post was abolished upon creation of the new one, and the pay scales of both posts had been merged under the Sixth Pay Commission. That finding dismantled the government's case for denying the first financial upgradation entirely.

The Service History of Ramesh Chandra at NEPA

Ramesh Chandra joined the North Eastern Police Academy at Umsaw, Meghalaya as a Hindi Instructor on 12 November 1984, drawing a pay scale of ₹470–750 per month, later revised to ₹5,000–8,000 under the Fifth Pay Commission. The Ministry of Home Affairs, vide Order No. 5/1/98-NE.II dated 26 May 1998, created one post of Hindi Officer at NEPA in the pay scale of ₹6,500–10,500. Critically, this creation simultaneously resulted in the abolition of the existing post of Hindi Instructor.

Following a Departmental Promotion Committee recommendation dated 29 May 1998, Ramesh Chandra was temporarily promoted and appointed to officiate as Hindi Officer (Group B) with effect from 1 June 1998. He superannuated on 1 September 2017. He passed away during the course of litigation, and his wife Smti. Veena Dhoundiyal was substituted as his legal heir vide order dated 2 April 2025.

How the ACP and MACP Schemes Applied—The Government's Position

The Assured Career Progression Scheme came into force on 9 August 1999. The government's stand, argued before the court by Dr. N. Mozika, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, was that since Ramesh Chandra had completed 12 years of service by 12 November 1996 and had already been promoted to Hindi Officer on 29 May 1998, he was ineligible for the first ACP.

When the MACP Scheme replaced the ACP Scheme with effect from 1 September 2008, it provided three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively, subject to the employee remaining stagnated in the same post. The government computed Ramesh Chandra's second MACP as running from his 1998 appointment as Hindi Officer, treating 10 years of service in that post as completing on 30 May 2008. The second financial upgradation was accordingly granted vide order dated 19 March 2012, in pay band 2 with pay scale ₹9,300–34,800 plus grade pay of ₹4,800, with effect from 1 September 2008.

Subsequently, vide MHA Letter No. 23012/63/2010-PC dated 13 March 2014, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, a grade pay of ₹5,400 in PB-3 (₹15,600–39,100) was extended to the Hindi Officer post at NEPA, and the post was re-designated as Assistant Director (Official Language) with effect from 1 January 2006. As a consequence, the earlier order dated 19 May 2012 granting the second MACP was stated to have become automatically null and void.

On the question of the third MACP, the learned DSGI candidly acknowledged that the third financial upgradation was granted to Ramesh Chandra with effect from 14 November 2014, even though he would have completed 30 years of service only on 29 May 2028—he had superannuated on 1 September 2017 before that threshold was reached. The government therefore contended before this court that the third MACP was erroneously granted and the CAT order perpetuating that grant was also liable to be set aside.

The Respondent's Argument: Pay Scale Merger Under the Sixth CPC

Mr. M. Chanda, appearing for the respondent, directed the court to paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme. That provision states that promotions earned, or upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme, to posts carrying the same grade pay—due to merger of pay scales or upgradation of posts—shall be ignored for the purpose of computing MACP entitlements.

Under the Sixth Pay Commission, the pay scales of ₹5,000–8,000, ₹5,500–9,000 and ₹6,500–10,500 were merged under a common grade pay of ₹4,200. The pay scale of Hindi Instructor and the pay scale of Hindi Officer at NEPA both fell within this merged band. Since the two posts were now clubbed under the same grade pay, any move between them could not, in law, be counted as a financial upgradation for MACP purposes. The respondent's counsel therefore argued that Ramesh Chandra was entitled to receive the first, second and third financial upgradations in the grade pays of ₹6,600, ₹7,600 and ₹8,700 respectively.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

Justice W. Diengdoh, writing the judgment, identified the core question as whether the 1998 appointment to Hindi Officer amounted to a promotion from Hindi Instructor for MACP computation purposes. The bench was not persuaded by the government's characterisation.

The court pointed to a basic structural fact: upon the creation of the post of Hindi Officer vide the 1998 MHA order, the post of Hindi Instructor stood abolished. There was, the bench observed, nothing on record to suggest that Hindi Instructor was a feeder cadre for Hindi Officer. Without a feeder cadre relationship, the 1998 appointment could not be treated as a promotion.

The bench then addressed the merger argument. Relying on paragraph 5 of the MACP Scheme, the court confirmed that since the pay scales of Hindi Instructor and Hindi Officer had merged into the same grade pay under the Sixth Pay Commission, any notion that the post of Hindi Officer is a promotional post has to be dispensed with. The two lines of reasoning—abolition of the earlier post and the pay scale merger—reinforced each other.

Having reached that conclusion, the court held that the date for reckoning MACP upgradations was Ramesh Chandra's original date of joining service in 1984, not the 1998 date of his appointment as Hindi Officer. On that basis, the court found him entitled to the first financial upgradation in grade pay ₹6,600 with effect from 1 September 2008, the second upgradation in grade pay ₹7,600 with effect from 1 September 2008, and the third upgradation in grade pay ₹8,700 with effect from 14 November 2014 on completion of 30 years of regular service.

The bench stated that the Union of India had not been able to make out a case to set aside and quash the CAT order dated 15 October 2023, and upheld it in full.

The CAT Order That Was Challenged

Before approaching the High Court, the Union of India had unsuccessfully challenged the government's refusal letter dated 18 February 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Ramesh Chandra had filed a representation seeking re-examination of the MACP benefits extended to him, specifically seeking the first ACP in grade pay ₹6,600, the second MACP in grade pay ₹7,600 and the third MACP in grade pay ₹8,700. The authorities rejected this representation vide order dated 18 February 2017. The Tribunal allowed his application, set aside that letter, and directed the upgradations in the grade pays and from the dates the High Court has now affirmed. The Union of India then filed WP(C) No. 139 of 2024 before the Meghalaya High Court.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CAT order dated 15 October 2023 in its entirety. No costs were imposed. The petition was disposed of on 5 June 2026.