Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 08.07.2025 vs North Eastern Hill University (Nehu) on 8 July, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:587
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 162 of 2015
Date of Decision: 08.07.2025
Shri. Nikhil Ranjan Paul,
Son of (L) N.K. Paul,
Resident of NEHU Quarter No. T-III (30),
NEHU Campus, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya.
....... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. North Eastern Hill University (NEHU),
NEHU Campus, Shillong - 793 002,
Meghalaya,
Represented by the Registrar.
2. The Registrar,
North-Eastern Hill University,
NEHU Campus, Shillong - 793 002,
Meghalaya.
3. The Deputy Registrar (Establishment-I),
North-Eastern Hill University,
NEHU Campus, Shillong - 793 002,
Meghalaya.
......Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. A. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. R. Dutta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, SC, NEHU with
Ms. E. Blah, Adv.
1
2025:MLHC:587
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. A. Paul, learned Sr. counsel along with Ms. R. Dutta,
learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner herein
was serving in the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) in the capacity of
a Technical Assistant in the Department of Information Technology, School
of Technology, which is a non-teaching post. The petitioner has initially
joined the service on 27.08.1981 and was appointed as Blacksmith in
SASRD, NEHU Campus, Medziphema, Nagaland.
2. Thereafter, vide Office Order No.F.18-1/RSG/87-2449 dated
October, 1988, the petitioner’s post of Blacksmith was re-designated as
Technical Assistant (Blacksmithy) with the stipulation that it will be in his
own pay and grade and that the qualification and nature of duties will remain
unchanged. On such re-designation, his pay was revised from ₹ 1400-2300/-
to ₹ 4500-7000/- However, the same was done so w.e.f. 24.11.1988 instead
of 27.08.1981, being his date of joining.
3. It is further submitted that vide Office Order F.No.17-27/Estt-
I/Per/2000-1660 dated 29.09.2001, the petitioner was given the first financial
upgradation under the Onetime Upward Movement (OUM) Scheme and his
pay was upgraded to ₹ 5500-9000/- w.e.f. 24.11.1996.
4. Again, it is submitted that as per the 6th Pay Commission
recommendation, the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)
Scheme was brought about to provide for three financial upgradations in the
2
2025:MLHC:587
service career of an employee in an interval of 10, 20 and 30 years
respectively. Accordingly, vide Office Order No. F.2.15(A)/CRC/2014/592
dated 07.07.2014, the petitioner was purportedly granted the 3 rd financial
upgradation under the MACP Scheme with revised pay of PB-2 (9300-
34800) + Grade Pay of ₹ 4600/- w.e.f. 27.08.2011.
5. The learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not
given his fair due of appropriate financial upgradations under the relevant
schemes applicable to his service and what was given to him under OUM and
MACP scheme are also inadequate and not in accordance with his
entitlement. Hence this petition.
6. To further clarify the situation, the learned Sr. counsel has pointed
out that under the UGC Scheme, One Time Upward Movement (OTUM) was
available to employees as a financial upgradation, also known as the first
financial upgradation (FFU) on their completion of 8 years of service. Again,
in August 1999 another scheme known as the Assured Career Progression
(ACP) Scheme came into being providing two financial upgradations to an
employee on completion of 12 years of service and then on completion of 24
years of service. Finally, the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)
Scheme came into force on 19.05.2009, wherein is provided that there shall
be three financial upgradations under such scheme counted from direct entry
grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively.
7. The first contention raised by the learned Sr. counsel is that the
petitioner is entitled to receive the three financial upgradations in his service
career, that is, OUM on completion of 8 years of service, thereafter after 12
years, he is to receive his second financial upgradation under the ACP
Scheme and finally, his third financial upgradation ought to have been under
the MACP Scheme. However, as has been submitted, the petitioner got only
3
2025:MLHC:587
two financial upgradations, that is, one under OUM and the second under the
MACP Scheme.
8. The second contention of the learned Sr. counsel is that of the two
financial upgradations that was given to the petitioner, they have not been
given to him in accordance with the manner in which they ought to have been
given, particularly as regard the point of time they were given, which was
beyond the period stipulated for the same. For example, the OUM was given
to him w.e.f. 24.11.1996 after 15 years of service when he was actually due
to get the same w.e.f. 27.08.1988, 8 years after his date of appointment.
9. The learned Sr. counsel went on to submit that at the time the post of
the petitioner was re-designated from that of ‘Blacksmith’ to ‘Technical
Assistant (Blacksmithy)’, the payscale was revised from ₹ 1400-2300/- to ₹
4500-7000/-. This was done across the board and as such, re-designation does
not mean upgradation or any financial upgradation given to the petitioner.
Even then, this revised payscale was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.11.1988
instead of 27.08.1981, the day the petitioner joined service.
10. Again, it is submitted that in the scheme of things, the petitioner ought
to have received his first financial upgradation under OUM after 8 years of
service, that is, on 27.08.1989, in the payscale of ₹ 5500-9000/-. But instead,
he was given OUM only w.e.f. 24.11.1996, after 15 years of service.
11. Now, since the ACP Scheme came into being, after 12 years of
service, the petitioner ought to have been given the 2nd financial upgradation
to the next higher payscale of ₹ 8000-13500/-. However, the same was not
given to him, instead the respondent authorities have then given another
financial upgradation vide Office Order dated 07.07.2014 terming it as the
3rd MACP with payscale of PB-2 (9300-34800) + Grade Pay of ₹ 4600/-
w.e.f. 27.08.2011, when it should have been the 2nd financial upgradation.
4
2025:MLHC:587
12. To strengthen the case of the petitioner, the learned Sr. counsel has
also referred to Annexure-5 at page 24 of the petition wherein is found a
proforma of “Individual Employee Details For Consideration Under ACP
Scheme” and the same pertaining to the petitioner, after noting all the service
details, the remarks at the bottom is of significance which bears the stamp of
the Registrar or Appropriate Authority, NEHU, reading as follows:
“He is entitled to receive OTUM in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-
(6500-10500/-) w.e.f. 27.08.89 as the STA”s who joined upto
08.04.98 were given the scale of Rs. 6500/-105600/- instead of Rs.
5500/- 9000/- which was wrongly given to Sh. N.R. Paul w.f.
24.11.1996 He also eligible to get second financial upgradation under
ACP in the scale of Rs.8000-13500/- w.e.f. 27.08.2005.”
13. In view of what has been contended, the learned Sr. counsel has
submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the following financial
upgradations, given and some not given, but nevertheless upon the same
given, as and when it is due with proper pay fixation, the petitioner ought to
have been given such financial upgradations as follows:
Petitioners Entitlement
Date Corresponding Corresponding
pay under the pay under the
5th CPC 6th CPC27.08.81 Initially joined as 4500-6000 5200-20200
Blacksmith subsequently +GP 2800
designated as Technical
Assistant in the pay scale
of Rs. 1320-204027.08.89 First Financial 6500-9000 9300-34800
Upgradation: On +GP 4600
completion of 8 years
service under OTUM27.08.2001 Second Financial 8000-13500 9300-34800
Upgradation: On5
2025:MLHC:587completion of next 12 +GP 5400
years service under ACP27.08.2011 Third Financial 10,000-15,200 15,600-39100
Upgradation: On +GP 6600
completion of next 10
years service under
MACPUpgradations granted/to be granted by the Respondents
Date Corresponding Corresponding
pay under the pay under the
5th CPC 6th CPC27.08.81 Initially joined as 4500-6000 9300-34800
Blacksmith subsequently +GP 4200
designated as Technical
Assistant in the pay scale
of Rs. 1320-204024.11.96 First Financial 5500-9000 9300-34800
Upgradation: +GP 420027.08.2011 Second Financial 6500-9000 9300-34800
Upgradation: +GP 4600Third Financial Not entitled
Upgradation: On the ground that the financial
upgradation granted w.e.f.
27.08.2011 is 3rd and last
financial upgradation.
14. Per contra, Mr. S. Sen, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
NEHU in his reply, has admitted that three schemes mentioned herein are
relevant inasmuch as OUM(OTUM) was holding the field till August 1998,
when the ACP Scheme came into force in August, 1999 and finally, the
6
2025:MLHC:587
MACP Scheme which came in the year 2009. These schemes were primarily
meant for central government employees and what the schemes postulates is
a situation where financial upgradations at relevant period are given to an
employee who meet the stipulated criteria.
15. However, if an employee has received previous financial
upgradation, the next financial upgradation will be counted and adjusted on
his being eligible under the prevailing scheme. For example, if he has
received one financial upgradation under the OUM scheme, he will then be
eligible for only one upgradation under the ACP scheme at the relevant point
of time and perhaps only one under the MACP scheme if that brings up three
financial upgradations in his service career.
16. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel that when
the MACP Scheme came into being in the year 2009 vide Office
Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, the same was also extended by the UGC to
make it applicable to all non-teaching employees of Central Universities,
including NEHU, vide communication dated 09.07.2010 by the Chief
Statistical Officer addressed to the Registrar, NEHU. However, while
implementing the said MACP Scheme, UGC has also laid down certain
conditions, inter alia, at clause VI which reads as follows:
“VI. It is to be ensured that in case of any promotion, personal
promotions, time bound promotions (One Upward
Movement/Second Upward Movement), in-situ promotions, any
upgradations, any club structuring scheme, personal pay scales
schemes, any restructuring of cadres, implementation of local cadre
review committee recommendations, any large scale/mass stepping
up exercise etc. carried out by the Universities in the past (before
8.4.1998 and thereafter financial upgradation awarded under ACP
Scheme of 9.8.1999, if any) resulting into financial benefits of higher
pay scales have to be adjusted against the MACP Scheme.”
17. What is stipulated under clause VI is that while calculating the period
7
2025:MLHC:587
for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, amongst others,
if there has been career restructuring in the service of an employee, that too
will be taken into account while computing the period of entitlement, that is,
10, 20 and 30 years of service from the date of initial appointment, further
submits the learned Standing Counsel.
18. As to the case of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has
submitted that he joined service on 27.08.1981 in the post of Blacksmith with
his payscale being ₹ 260-350/- (under the 3rd CPC) with revised pay under
the 5th CPC being ₹ 3050-4590/-. On his post being re-designated to
Technical Assistant (Blacksmithy), instead of getting the corresponding
payscale of ₹ 3050-4590/-, he was given financial upgradation in the payscale
of ₹ 4500-7000/- w.e.f. 24.11.1988, this was done so vide order dated
29.09.2001. In the same order dated 29.09.2001, the petitioner was also given
the next financial upgradation under upward payscale of ₹ 5500-9000/- (5th
CPC) w.e.f. 24.11.1996, that is, 8 years from the date his post was re-
designated. Finally, the petitioner was given the 3rd financial upgradation
under the MACP scheme with payscale of PB-2 (9300-34800) + Grade Pay
of ₹ 4600/- w.e.f. 27.08.2011 on his completion of service of 30 years. As
such, he has thus received all the three financial upgradation entitled by him
and therefore this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed
submits the learned Standing Counsel.
19. This Court on consideration of the case of the respective parties
presented herein is made to understand that the grievance of the petitioner is
with regard to his deprivation of the financial upgradations he is entitled to
and which is due to be given to him at specific point of time in his service
career, the same being relatable to the benefits under the OUM scheme, the
ACP and the MACP scheme respectively.
8
2025:MLHC:587
20. The petitioner has admitted that his initial post of Blacksmith was
subsequently re-designated as Technical Assistant (Blacksmithy), however
the same would be in his own pay and grade. His core payscale would be ₹
1400-2300/- as is evident from the order dated 29.09.2001 (supra). The same
was revised to ₹ 4500-7000/- w.e.f. 24.11.1998 but according to the petitioner
it should have been w.e.f. 27.08.1981, the day he joined service.
21. The respondent/NEHU on the other hand, at para 4 of their affidavit-
in-opposition has maintained that on his post being re-designated to
Technical Assistant he was given a higher payscale of ₹ 975-1540/- (4th
CPC)/₹ 3200-4900/- (5th CPC) which was made applicable to him from the
date of his joining, that is, 27.08.1981. Subsequently, he was given the next
financial upgradation under the OUM (OTUM) scheme w.e.f. 27.08.1989
with his payscale revised to ₹ 1320-2040/- (4th CPC)/₹ 4000-6000/- (5th
CPC).
22. In the same para 4 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the
respondent/NEHU has stated that “…the Writ Petitioner appointed in the
initial scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590 (5th CPC) was replaced with the pay
scale of Rs. 3200-4900 (5th CPC) was granted the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-
(5th CPC) on 27.08.1989 and thereafter allowed the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-
7000 (5th CPC) w.e.f. 24.11.1988…”. It was asserted that the writ petitioner
within a span of 7 years has reached the scale pay of ₹ 4500-7000/- from his
initial scale of ₹ 3050-4590/- which has to be considered as a financial benefit
or financial upgradation bestowed upon him.
23. This Court has carefully analysed the facts and circumstances
available on record. It would appear that the controversy revolves around the
area of calculation, particularly as regard the payscale due and entitled to by
the petitioner vis-à-vis the three schemes of financial upgradation applicable
9
2025:MLHC:587
to his case.
24. However, the core issue that could be made out herein is the
controversy as regard the pay fixation and payscale granted to the petitioner
at the time when his post of “Blacksmith” was re-designated to that of
“Technical Assistant” w.e.f. 24.11.1988. As has been pointed out, at the time
of his appointment on 27.08.1981 the petitioner was entitled to the payscale
of ₹ 3200-4900/- (5th CPC). On the post being re-designated, eventually he
was granted the payscale of ₹ 4500-7000/- w.e.f. 24.11.1988. As was
contended by the learned Standing Counsel/NEHU, this Court would also
agree that within 7 years of his service, there was a manifold increase in his
payscale which is not in the normal course of usual increment. Therefore, it
is, but proper to say that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of
financial upgradation in the year 1988.
25. Again, as per the order dated 29.09.2001 the petitioner is seen to have
been granted another financial upgradation in the form of OUM effective
from 24.11.1996, that is, 8 years from 24.11.1988, the day his post was re-
designated to Technical Assistant. As such, the contention of the
respondent/NEHU that this is the second financial upgradation is also found
justified.
26. Finally, that the petitioner was granted another financial upgradation
under the MACP scheme with his pay being revised to PB-2 (₹ 9300-34800/-
) + GP of ₹ 4600/- w.e.f. 27.08.2011 has also been correctly granted to him.
27. It may not be out of place to mention that the alleged recommendation
made by the Registrar, NEHU, annexed at page-24 of the petition as
Annexure-5 will have no bearing on the merits of the case of the petitioner,
since the same remained recommendation, if at all, and no formal order was
passed by the competent authority, that is, the Vice Chancellor in furtherance
10
2025:MLHC:587
thereof.
28. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is convinced that the
petitioner has not been short-charged as far as his financial benefits in course
of his employment is concerned, and as such, no case is made out for
interference by this Court.
29. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed as such.
30. Petition disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR 11
Date: 2025.07.08 16:05:18 IST
[ad_1]
Source link