Authored By Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated December 19, 2024, upheld the right of retired Border Security Force (BSF) personnel to claim the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, ruled that the notional service period until the enhanced retirement age of 60 years must be considered as "regular service" for the purpose of MACP evaluation. The Court determined that denying this benefit while extending other retiral benefits based on the notional service would amount to partial implementation of the principles laid down in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police.

The petitioners, retired BSF personnel, challenged the BSF’s decision to deny them the third MACP benefit despite having completed 30 years of service, including the notional service period up to 60 years as mandated by Dev Sharma. Under earlier regulations, BSF personnel below the rank of Commandant retired at 57 years, while higher-ranking officers retired at 60. This differential retirement age was struck down as discriminatory by the Supreme Court in Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police (W.P.(C) 1951/2012), which extended retirement to 60 years for all Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).

The Supreme Court in Dev Sharma directed that notional service till 60 years should be counted for retiral benefits like pension and gratuity. However, BSF personnel retiring between 57 and 60 years were denied the MACP benefit on the grounds that the scheme required "regular service," which BSF defined as active service rendered prior to retirement.

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Ankur Chhibber and others, contended that Dev Sharma deemed them to have served till 60 years for retiral benefits. Therefore, denying the MACP benefit while extending other benefits based on the same notional service period was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued, “The refusal to grant MACP benefits creates an artificial distinction that is both arbitrary and contrary to the law established in Dev Sharma.”

On the other hand, the BSF, represented by Mr. Ranvir Singh, CGSC argued that Dev Sharma did not explicitly extend to benefits under the MACP scheme. The respondents submitted that MACP benefits could only be granted to personnel actively serving at the time of completing 30 years of service, not those deemed to have served till 60 years through notional extension. They maintained that notional service was limited to retiral benefits like pension and gratuity.

The Court examined the scope and implications of the judgment in Dev Sharma. It noted that the Supreme Court had declared the differential retirement ages for CAPFs unconstitutional and directed uniformity at 60 years for all ranks. The notional service period till 60 years was explicitly intended to rectify the disadvantage faced by personnel retiring at 57 years under the previous regulations.

The Bench observed that the MACP Scheme, introduced in 2008, provides financial upgradations on completing 10, 20, and 30 years of service. Personnel retiring at 57 years were previously unable to fulfill the 30-year requirement for the third MACP. However, Dev Sharma effectively remedied this by extending notional service till 60 years. The Court held, “Denying the MACP benefit while granting other retiral benefits based on the same notional service is inconsistent with the principles laid down in Dev Sharma and creates a partial implementation of the judgment.”

The Court further clarified that the MACP Scheme is service-linked and not dependent on retirement status. It stated, “Once the notional service till 60 years is deemed regular for pension and gratuity, it must also be deemed regular for the purpose of financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.”

The High Court directed the BSF to re-evaluate the petitioners’ eligibility for the third MACP benefit by considering their notional service till 60 years as "regular service." The Court ordered the formation of a Screening Committee to process the claims within three months. It clarified that while the MACP benefit would be calculated for pension purposes, no arrears of pay would be awarded.

Case Title: Jai Singh Saharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 6714/2023
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur

[Read/Download order]