Meghalaya High Court | PSU Service Not Countable for ACP/MACP After State Absorption | Clause 5 Bars Past MTDC Service | Writ Dismissed for Delay and Non-Joinder
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew dismissed a writ petition seeking benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Schemes. The Court held that the petitioner’s service in the Meghalaya Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC), being a public sector undertaking, could not be counted towards eligibility under these schemes upon her absorption into State Government service. The Court directed that no further benefits could be extended under the ACP or MACP, and dismissed the petition without costs.
The petitioner began her career with the Meghalaya Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (MTDC) in 1991 as a Contractual Management Trainee. From 1991 to 1993, she received a monthly stipend. On 1 May 1993, she was appointed as Supervisor with a basic pay of Rs. 1750/-. She served in this role for nearly seventeen years.
Also Read: Bail Allowed Under UAPA | Meghalaya High Court Finds Arrest Illegal Without Communication of Grounds
In 2010, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager. The pay scale for this post was lower than her previous position, but MTDC granted her a notional increment under Fundamental Rule 23(1) to offset the disparity. In 2011, she was deputed to the Governor’s Secretariat, Raj Bhavan, Shillong, as Comptroller of Household. By 2014, she was permanently absorbed into the Governor’s Secretariat.
The petitioner claimed entitlement to financial upgradation under two service schemes: (a) the ACP Scheme, for her service from 1993 to 2011 in MTDC; and (b) the MACP Scheme, after her absorption in 2014 into State Government service. She alleged denial of such benefits, prompting the filing of the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner advanced four key issues for consideration:
- Whether MTDC could deny ACP benefits for 12 years of service (1993–2005) despite adopting the ACP Scheme on 5 July 2011.
- Whether the Rs. 460 increment received on appointment as Assistant Manager in 2010 amounted to ACP financial upgradation.
- Whether she was eligible under the ACP Scheme adopted by Meghalaya on 22 February 2010 and MTDC on 5 July 2011.
- Whether she was entitled to MACP benefits under the State’s Office Memorandum dated 19 December 2017.
The petitioner contended that her right under the ACP Scheme accrued when Meghalaya adopted it in 2010, and MTDC in 2011, creating a continuing cause of action. She asserted that the notional increment granted in 2010 was merely pay protection and not financial upgradation under ACP. She argued that she had never been promoted since 1993, resulting in prolonged stagnation, and that the Screening Committee should have considered her under both ACP and MACP. She maintained that her claims were live and continuing, not barred by limitation, citing Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648.
In response, counsel for the State, Mr. A.M. Tripathi with Ms. R. Colney, submitted that the petitioner was an MTDC employee until 25 November 2014, when she became a government employee. The ACP Scheme, according to clause 5, excluded past service in a PSU for calculating qualifying service. Her past service could only be counted for pension purposes, not ACP or MACP eligibility. They relied on A.K. Bindal v. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163.
The State argued that ACP benefits were admissible only after absorption in State service, and the petitioner’s past representations had been addressed to MTDC, confirming her awareness of her position. They contended the petition was barred by delay and laches, as claims dated back to 2003 and 2013.
On behalf of MTDC, Mr. S. Sen with Mr. M.U. Ahmed contended that the petitioner voluntarily applied for the post of Assistant Manager, thereby ending stagnation in the Supervisor post. They maintained that ACP was prospective from 7 July 2011, whereas her stagnation ended in 2010. Granting retrospective ACP benefits would create untenable claims for past stagnation. MTDC emphasized that ACP benefits were never intended for retroactive application and cited Union of India v. S. Ranjit Samuel 2022 SCC OnLine SC 368.
The respondents also argued non-joinder of necessary parties, since MTDC was a separate corporate body required to sue or be sued in its own name. Although the petitioner addressed representations to MTDC, she had not arrayed the corporation as a necessary party in the writ petition.
Justice Thangkhiew examined the record and stated: “The issue in question simply put, is whether the writ petitioner in the course of her service firstly in the MTDC, and later under the State Government would be eligible to avail of the benefit of ACP and MACP, taking into account the course of her career, and also the other attendant facts and circumstances, such as the question of delay and laches and non-joinder of necessary parties.”
The Court recorded that the petitioner had stagnated as Supervisor from 1993 until 2010, but her appointment as Assistant Manager in November 2010 ended that stagnation before the ACP Scheme was implemented by MTDC in July 2011. “Her stagnation in the post of Supervisor ceased before the ACP Scheme was implemented, which would not have been the case had she continued to stagnate in the post of Supervisor.”
On MACP, the Court observed: “The petitioner at the time of the implementation of the MACPS, had rendered 6(six) years of service under the State respondents having joined the Governor’s Secretariat initially on deputation on 08.08.2011 and thereafter, was permanently absorbed on 26.11.2014. It is also relevant to note that since her joining into permanent service under the State respondents, the petitioner has already received a financial upgradation in the pay scale from Level-15 to Pay Level-16 on 04.08.2021.”
Regarding the increment of Rs. 460/-, the Court held: “This to the mind of this Court, has little relevance in the discourse and cannot be construed to be a benefit under the ACP Scheme, inasmuch as, the same was in the nature of pay protection and not a financial upgradation, on her being appointed to the post of Assistant Manager in the MTDC.”
The Court referred to clause 5 of the ACP Scheme: “The watershed moment in the service of the petitioner was the transition from the MTDC to the State Government and are two distinct chapters in her service, that cannot be reconciled for the purposes of counting of her past service to vest in her any right to claim a cumulative benefit from the two Schemes i.e. ACP and MACP.”
Citing Union of India v. S. Ranjit Samuel, the Court quoted: “Eligibility ipso facto could not, having regard to the terms of the ACP scheme translate into an entitlement. The eligibility was, to put it differently, an expectation. To be entitled to the benefits, the public employer had to necessarily review and consider the employees’ records. In other words, second ACP upgradation was not automatic but dependant on external factors.”
On delay and laches, the Court stated: “The writ petition seeking benefit under the ACP Scheme is also hit by delay and laches, as no injury persists.”
Addressing non-joinder, the Court quoted Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector: “It needs to be noted here that a legal entity - a natural person or an artificial person - can sue or be sued in his/its own name in a court of law or a Tribunal. … care must be taken to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, otherwise, the suit or the proceedings will have to fail.”
Justice Thangkhiew concluded: “As such, in the totality of the circumstances, the case of the petitioner fails on all fronts firstly, on the question of entitlement, the delay in seeking legal remedy and also for non-joinder of necessary parties, and accordingly writ petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. H. Buragohain, Advocate with Ms. S. Langstieh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A.M. Tripathi, Government Advocate with Ms. R. Colney, Government Advocate; Mr. S. Sen, Advocate with Mr. M.U. Ahmed, Advocate
Case Title: Smti. Anamika Dutta v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:MLHC:773
Case Number: WP(C) No. 147 of 2023
Bench: Justice H. S. Thangkhiew
