In this edition of the Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement on availing both MACPS & Time-Bound Promotion by Central Government Employees, Madras High Court’s judgement on public scrutiny of assets and liabilities of public servants, Kerala High Court’s judgement on loan defaulters and their Right to Privacy, Allahabad High Court’s judgement on jurisdiction of State Human Rights Commissions in Child Custody cases, and Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgement on right of same-sex partners to cohabit.
Supreme Court: MACPS and other time-bound promotion scheme benefits cannot be concurrently enjoyed by Central Government Employee.
In this case, Union of India & Ors. vs. N.M. Raut & Ors. was brought before the Supreme Court of India as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of India and others, challenging the decision of the High Court that upheld the rights of certain employees to continue receiving the benefits under their earlier service rules. The petition raised significant questions regarding the interplay between statutory service rules and administrative orders, alongside broader implications for uniform service conditions.
The judgment addresses appeals concerning the interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) introduced on 01 September 2008. The MACPS replaced the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), which was operational from 09 August 1999 to 31 August 2008, and this judgment delves into the differences between these two schemes and their application to government employees.
The ACPS provided financial upgradations after 12 and 24 years of service without promotions, while the MACPS introduced a system of three financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years of service. Another key difference was that under the ACPS, financial upgradations were tied to the next promotional pay scale, whereas under the MACPS, they were based on the next higher grade pay within the pay structure of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
The judgment reviews previous rulings, particularly Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, which established the distinction between the two schemes and was further clarified in cases like Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma, Directorate of Enforcement vs. K. Sudheesh Kumar, and Union of India vs. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh. These rulings emphasized that financial upgradations under MACPS are based on grade pay increments, not promotional hierarchies.
For example, in Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh, the court addressed the effective date of MACPS, confirming its applicability from 01 September 2008, and clarified its precedence over benefits arising from the earlier enforcement of the Revised Pay Rules in 2006.
The judgment also considers specific cases to illustrate the application of MACPS. For instance, in the case of Devendra Saxena, the court examined his financial upgradations, promotions, and pay revisions under both ACPS and MACPS. Despite receiving multiple financial benefits, Saxena was erroneously granted an additional upgradation upon completing 30 years of service, highlighting the need for strict adherence to MACPS guidelines, which limit benefits to three financial upgradations.
The MACPS provisions ensure financial upgradation based on grade pay hierarchy, disregarding earlier promotions under the ACPS. It emphasizes personal benefits without altering seniority or functional roles, and it cannot run concurrently with other promotion schemes. Further, reservations do not apply to financial upgradations under MACPS but must be adhered to in regular promotions.
Accordingly, the Apex Court held that the respondents would be entitled only to MACPS and not concurrently benefit from any other time-bound promotion scheme.
Madras HC: Assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same
In M.Tamilselvan vs. The District Collector and Others, the Madras High Court held that once an individual accepts to join public service, he/she must accept that they live in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details at least so far as their service is concerned, and the assets and liabilities are not private information, they can be disclosed.
The single-judge bench headed by Justice C.V. Karthikeyan was considering a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the personal details of some public servants. The Writ Petition seeks to quash an order issued by the State Information Commission, Chennai, denying the petitioner access to certain information requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and to direct the respondents to provide the requested information.
The petitioner had sought details about an Assistant Engineer’s disproportionate assets and, later, information regarding the service register, assets, and liabilities of a Panchayat Secretary. Despite multiple appeals and representations, the information was denied under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, citing it as personal and exempt from disclosure.
The Court clarified that Section 8 of the RTI Act pertains exclusively to personal information and cannot justify a blanket denial of all information. It emphasized that any denial or disclosure of information must be supported by valid reasons.
The service register of a public servant, containing details such as the date of joining, transfers, increments, earned leave, and punishments (if any), cannot be categorized entirely as private information. While punishments may be considered private to some extent, as disclosure could harm the public servant’s reputation, details like the date of joining, superannuation, and assets and liabilities are not private. The Court noted that individuals in public service must accept public scrutiny regarding their official service details.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the State Information Commission for reconsideration, directing it to assess the request afresh. The Commission was instructed to resolve the matter within two months.
Kerala HC: Publication or display of photographs of defaulting borrowers in public will be an invasion of right of the borrowers to live with dignity and reputation.
In The Management Committee of Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and Another vs. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Kerala High Court held that the publication or display of the photographs of defaulting borrowers will infringe upon their dignity and reputation, and violate their fundamental right to life, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Single judge bench headed by Justice Murali Purushothaman was hearing a petition filed by the Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and its Managing Committee challenging communication issued by the respondent, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, directing the Secretary to remove the flex board displaying the names and photographs of defaulting borrowers in front of their head office.
The Society reported financial challenges with deposits totalling ₹28 crores, loans outstanding at ₹12 crores, and a 59% overdue rate. To recover debts, 62 arbitration cases and execution petitions were filed, but recovery remained difficult. As a last resort, the Society displayed a board with names, photographs, and loan details of 1,750 defaulters, resulting in improved recovery efforts as borrowers began clearing, partially repaying, or renewing loans. Encouraged by this progress, the Society prepared another set for publication.
However, the respondent issued a communication, ordering the removal of the board and stating that publishing borrower details without consent violates privacy laws and could result in legal liability. The Society contended it has a duty to recover loans to prevent collapse, arguing that if practices like public announcements during property attachments are allowed under Rule 81 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969, similar displays should also be permissible. The Society sought to quash Ext.P2 and affirm its right to continue the recovery process.
Hearing both sides, the Court maintained that the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules outline recovery methods, such as property attachment and sale, but do not authorize public display of borrower details. Publishing such information invades borrowers’ privacy, damages their reputation, and infringes upon their fundamental rights to dignity and life under Article 21 of the Constitution which cannot be deprived except according to procedure established by law. Consequently, it is held that coercive recovery methods, like publishing photographs, are unlawful and unconstitutional.
Allahabad HC: State Human Rights Commissions does not have jurisdiction in child custody cases.
In Prabha Shankar Dwivedi and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. Human Rights Commission, the Allahabad High Court held that the State Human Rights Commission, prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned, as there are specific remedies prescribed in this regard in other statutes.
The bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Brij Raj Singh was hearing a petition against the order of the State Human Rights Commission in the child custody matter. The case arises from the death of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2’s daughter-in-law, who was also the daughter of the private opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, under allegedly suspicious circumstances on 06 November 2024. This incident led to the filing of a criminal case against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2’s son, the deceased’s husband, who is currently in custody.
The deceased’s two minor children, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, born out of wedlock, are at the centre of the dispute. Opposite party No. 4, the maternal grandfather, filed an application with the Director General of Police (D.G.P.), Uttar Pradesh, on 11 November 2024, alleging that the children’s whereabouts were unknown and expressing concerns about their safety. A copy of the application was also sent to the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission.
Based on the application forwarded to it, the Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the matter and issued directions to the Investigating Officer (I.O) whose report revealed that the children were in the care of petitioner Nos. 1 and other family members. Subsequently, on 14 November 2024, the Commission ordered the I.O. to take custody of the children and lodge them in a Child Care Home. Later, due to the ill health of petitioner No. 2, who could not appear with the children, a verification order was issued on 05 December 2024.
The petitioners challenged the Commission’s orders dated 14 November 2024 and 05 December 2024, seeking a writ of prohibition against any further action by the Commission concerning the children’s custody.
The petitioners contended that the State Human Rights Commission lacked jurisdiction over matters related to child custody, which are governed by specific statutes such as the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and others. Relying on the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and relevant Supreme Court judgments, the petitioners argued that the definition of ‘human rights’ under Section 2(d) and the functions outlined in Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, cannot be extended to cover matters related to the custody of minor children.
Opposing this, counsel for opposite party No. 4 argued that the Commission’s actions were justified under Section 12(a) and (j) of the Act, 1993, asserting that a broader interpretation of “human rights” was warranted.
After considering the submissions, the Court observed that the jurisdiction of the State Human Rights Commission, as defined under the Act, 1993, does not extend to custody matters, which are governed by specific legal frameworks. The Court found that the Commission had prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction by directing actions concerning custody.
In light of these findings, the Court stayed the orders dated 14 November 2024 and 05 December 2024 insofar as they related to the children’s custody and their production before the Commission. The Court clarified that the I.O. remains free to proceed with the criminal investigation, and the petitioners are required to cooperate.
The private opposite parties were granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies concerning custody and seek fair investigation as advised under the law.
Andhra Pradesh HC: Allows a female major to cohabit with her female partner.
In Chadalavada Pallavi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that being a female major is free to make her own decisions about her life, neither the parents nor the other family members can restrain her from taking a decision in regard to her life.
The petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court, asserting that she is in a relationship with the alleged detenue. She contends that the detenue was forcibly taken away by respondent No. 5 and others after lodging a complaint against her parents on 30 September 2024. According to the petitioner, the detenue is being deprived of her liberty to decide her residence and is being forcibly restrained by her parents from joining the petitioner.
The Court directed the production of the detenue and when interacted in chambers, the detenue unequivocally expressed her desire to be with the petitioner and stated that she does not wish to pursue any criminal complaint against her parents or family members. She further clarified her intention to withdraw the complaint filed on 30 September 2024 with the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada.
Considering that the detenue is a major and legally entitled to make her own life decisions, the Court held that neither her parents nor other family members have the authority to impose restrictions on her autonomy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, granting the detenue the freedom to be with the petitioner or make any other decision as per her wishes. Furthermore, the Court directed that no criminal proceedings shall be initiated against the detenue’s parents or family members based on allegations related to this case.
