Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

Can an employee claim the benefit of a career-progression scheme for a period before the scheme came into force?

The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai

2026:MHC:3177 · WP NOS.33823, 27433 & 30026 OF 2023
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar · Justice N. Senthilkumar

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Clause (1) Modified Assured Care…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. A scheme implemented prospectively confers no benefit for years in which it did not exist, and an employee cannot claim benefits that were non-existent. Where the second upgradation was granted with effect from the date the scheme came into force and that date was accepted and left unchallenged, the third upgradation falls due only on completion of ten years from it.

Headnote

Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Clause (1) — Clause (5) — Financial upgradation — Pay anomalies — Prospective operation — Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Clause (1) — Upgradation on 10, 20 and 30 years from the entry grade — Held: The Scheme provides three financial upgradations counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years, and an upgradation is admissible whenever an employee has spent ten years continuously in the same grade pay. (¶11, ¶13) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Clause (5) — Confined to pay anomalies — Held further: Clause (5), which ignores earlier promotions to grades now carrying the same grade pay, addresses anomalies arising from merger of scales or upgradation of posts; it does not apply where upgradations fall due under Clause (1). (¶15, ¶16, ¶17) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme — Prospective operation — No benefit before the Scheme existed — Held further: A scheme operates prospectively from the date it came into force, and no benefit can be claimed for years in which it did not exist; the third upgradation runs ten years from the accepted date of the second. Petitions allowed. (¶24, ¶26, ¶27)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 24Further, the period of 10 years for grant of III MACP Scheme benefits is to be calculated from 01.09.2008. However, the 2 nd respondent in each writ petitions wrongly set out their claim, on the ground that the period of 10 years completed in the posts of Passenger Guard and Mail Guard respectively, on 19.08.1986, 23.05.1990 and 19.07.1992 respectively and therefore, they are eligible to claim III MACP Scheme benefits in the year 2012. This calculation is erroneous, as the scheme itself was not in force during the year 2002 and it came into force with effect from 01.09.2008. Since the scheme did not exist, the employees cannot claim benefits that were non-existent.

Paragraph 25The benefits of III MACP Scheme came into force on 01.09.2008 and II MACP Scheme was granted to the 2 nd respondent with Page No.13 of 16 WP NOS.33823, 27433 & 30026 OF 2023 effect from 01.09.2008. Therefore, the appellants rightly granted III MACP Scheme benefits with effect from 01.09.2018, on completion of 10 years from the effective date of second upgradation, thereby extending the benefit of III MACP Scheme.

Paragraph 26When the 2nd respondent in each writ petitions accepted the 2nd MACP Scheme benefits with effect from 01.09.2008 and the said date remained unchallenged, they cannot claim the benefit of III MACP Scheme from 18.08.1982, 25.11.1986 and 19.07.1992 respectively. Such a ground is untenable. Scheme was not available prior to 01.09.2008 and it was implemented prospectively. After implementation of the scheme, the II MACP Scheme was granted to the 2nd respondent in each writ petitions on 01.09.2008. Consequently, on completion of 10 years, III MACP Scheme benefits were granted from 01.09.2018.

Acts & Sections

Clause (1) Modified Assured Career Progression SchemeClause (5) Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

From what point are the three financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme counted?When does the clause ignoring earlier promotions to grades that now carry the same grade pay apply?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections