JUDGMENT : 1. Whether the applicability of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme ("MACP Scheme" for short) to the petitioners with retrospective effect from 1.9.2008 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is the question that falls for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- The Petitioners joined the Military Engineer Services, Ministry of Defence, Government of India as civilian employees and are working as such to this date. The details of their joining the services and the date on which they had completed 24 years of regular service are noted in the following table. Sl. No Name of the Petitioners with MES No Date of joining the services & the post Date on which the Petitioners have completed 24 yrs of regular service. 1. B.D. Kadam – 600051 29.04.1985 Suptd. E/M. Gr.II (Initial) 29.04.2009 2 Balakrishna Raju – 127664 01.04.1985 Suptd.B/R. Gr.II 01.04.2009 3 P.M.Jain – 188656 02.05.1985 Suptd.B/R. Gr.II 02.05.2009 4 P.Abdulla – 123542 26.04.1985 Suptd.B/R. Gr.II 26.04.2009 5 V.M.Vantamutte-124485 08.04.1985 Suptd.E/M. Gr.II 08.04.2009 6 P.R.Raju – 124483 04.04.1985 Suptd.B/R. Gr.II 04.04.2009 7 Sri.S.Mani Mohan 127665, A.E. (Civil) 01.04.1985 Suptd.E/M. Gr.II 01.04.2009 8 Smt.P.Sumathy-134938J.E.(QS & C) 01.04.1985S.A.-II 01.04.2009 9 Smt.JayashreeJayakrishnan-190730J.E. (QS & C) 01.04.1985S.A.-II 01.04.2009 10 Smt.Valasala Kumari-187889, A.E.(Civil) 02.04.1985Suptd.B/R. Gr.II 02.04.2009 11 Smt.Kumari N.P.109773, A.E. (Civil) 03.04.1985 Suptd.B/R. Gr.II 03.04.2009 12 Sri.P.Sur Reddy-194632A.E.(Civil) 08.04.1985 Suptd.B/R. Gr.II 08.04.2009 13 Sri.S.Sounderarajan-128077, J.E. (QS & C) 11.04.1985S.A.-II 11.04.2009 14 Sri.P.H. Abdul Kareem- 188615, A.E.(Civil) 15.04.1985Supdt. B/R. Gr.II 15.04.2009 15 Sri.DSRK Reddy 123729, A.E. (Civil) 02.05.1985Supdt. B/R Gr.II 02.05.2009 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have completed 24 years of continuous service in the same post without any promotion and by virtue of Assured Career Progression Scheme ("ACP Scheme" for short) which was in vogue, all the petitioners were eligible for grant of II-ACP on completion of 24 years of continuous service. But before consideration of the case of the petitioners for grant of the said benefit, MACP Scheme was introduced by the Government vide Office Memorandum dated 19.5.2009 and the same was made operational with effect from 1.9.2008. But before consideration of the case of the petitioners for grant of the said benefit, MACP Scheme was introduced by the Government vide Office Memorandum dated 19.5.2009 and the same was made operational with effect from 1.9.2008. As all the petitioners had completed 24 years of continuous service during the interregnum between 31.8.2008 and 19.5.2009, the petitioners challenged the efficacy of making the MACP Scheme operational retrospectively on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short). 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, by a common order in O.A.Nos.1086-1091 of 2014 and 897-905 of 2015 dated 10.3.2016 dismissed the claim of the petitioners. 5. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal to uphold the retrospective applicability of the O.M. dated 19.5.2009 finds place in para 20 of the impugned order. It is extracted herebelow:- "20. Under the previous ACP Scheme, Financial upgradation was to be given to the next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a cadre or the category of the posts without creating a new post for the purpose. On the other hand in case of MACP, it envisages placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay band and grade pay as given in Section-1 in part A of the first schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008. It is to be noted that the revised pay scales came to existence upon issuance of OM dated 29.08.2008 though it was given effect from 1.1.2006. Therefore, after 29.08.2008, the old pay scales were no longer in existence and it was replaced by pay bands and grade pays as specified in the revised pay rules 2008. It appears that in view of this fact, the MACP which provides for placement in the next higher grade pay in the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay was given effect from 1.9.2008, since after issuance of the OM dated 29.08.2008 the old pay scales no longer were in existence. Considering the fact that many employees would have got ACP benefits between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008 their fitment in the new pattern would be involved. Para 6.2 of the Scheme addresses that aspect. Considering the fact that many employees would have got ACP benefits between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008 their fitment in the new pattern would be involved. Para 6.2 of the Scheme addresses that aspect. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in Para 9 giving retrospective effect to MACP Scheme just as the introduction of new pay scales was given retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. Therefore, we do not accept the contention of the applicants that para-9 of the OM dated 19.5.2009 is bad and should be set aside." 6. A reading of the above portion of the order indicates that the only ground on which the Tribunal has upheld the retrospective application of the MACP Scheme is that the revised pay scale which was introduced by the Government on 29.08.2008 was given retrospective effect from 1.1.2006 and therefore, the Government was justified in giving retrospective effect to the MACP Scheme. The Tribunal has also noted in the impugned order that para 6.2 of the Scheme addresses this aspect. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on going through the impugned order, we are unable to subscribe to the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal to reject the claim of the petitioners. Though the Tribunal has observed that para 6.2 of the Scheme addresses the aspect of retrospective application of the MACP Scheme, but on going through the O.M. dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure-A7) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), we find that the said O.M. dated 19.5.2009 does not contain para 6.2 as stated in the impugned order, whereas the ACP Scheme of 9.8.1999 contains para 6.2. It reads as under: "6.2 The composition of the Screening Committee shall be the same as that of the DPC prescribed under the relevant Recruitment/Service Rules for regular promotion to the higher grade to which financial upgradation is to be granted. However, in case where DPC as per the prescribed Rules is headed by the Chairman/Member of the UPSC, the Screening Committee under the ACP Scheme shall, instead, be headed by the Secretary or an Officer of equivalent rank of the concerned Ministry/Department. However, in case where DPC as per the prescribed Rules is headed by the Chairman/Member of the UPSC, the Screening Committee under the ACP Scheme shall, instead, be headed by the Secretary or an Officer of equivalent rank of the concerned Ministry/Department. In respect of isolated posts, the composition of the Screening Committee (with modification as noted above, if required) shall be the same as that of the DPC for promotion to analogous grade in that Ministry/Department." Para 6 of the O.M. dated 19.5.2009 relating to MACP Scheme reads as under: "6. In order to prevent undue strain on the administrative machinery, the Screening Committee shall fallow a time- schedule and meet twice in a financial year - preferably in the first week of January and first week of July of a year for advance processing of the cases maturing in that half. Accordingly, cases maturing during the first-half (April-September) of a particular financial year shall be taken up for consideration by the Screening Committee meeting in the first week of January. Similarly, the Screening Committee meeting in the first week of July of any financial year shall process the cases that would be maturing during the second-half (October-March) of the same financial year." 8. We do not find anything either in para 6 of O.M. dated 19.5.2009 or para 6.2 of O.M. dated 9.8.1999 which supports the reasoning of the Tribunal that on account of extending the benefit of revised pay scales to the employees who had completed 24 years of service between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008, the Government had decided to deny them the benefit of the financial upgradation. Therefore, on the face of it, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. Secondly, we do not find any justification in the impugned order for the Tribunal to hold that the revision of pay scales disentitles the petitioners herein to the benefit of the II- ACP to which they were otherwise entitled to in terms of the erstwhile ACP Scheme. In our opinion, the revision of pay scales cannot take away the right of the petitioners for grant of financial upgradation. Undisputedly, revised pay scales were made applicable to all the employees in all the cadres irrespective of their stagnation or promotion. In our opinion, the revision of pay scales cannot take away the right of the petitioners for grant of financial upgradation. Undisputedly, revised pay scales were made applicable to all the employees in all the cadres irrespective of their stagnation or promotion. It is not the case of the respondents that the employees who were granted the benefit of the II-ACP between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008 did not avail the benefit of revision of the pay scales. The revision of pay scale was brought into effect on 1.1.2006. When the employees who had completed 24 years of continuous service during the period from 1.1.2006 to 31.8.2008 were granted the II-ACP in accordance with the terms of the erstwhile ACP Scheme, there was no reason for the respondents to deny the said benefit to the petitioners by declaring the MACP Scheme effective from retrospective date. Even otherwise, we do not find any logic in the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the benefit of revision of pay was extended to the employees retrospectively, the respondents were justified in making the MACP Scheme operational from retrospective date. 10. In our view, the revision of pay of the employees has no nexus whatsoever with the grant of financial upgradation to the petitioners in accordance with the Scheme formulated by the Government. Since the pay structure has been changed uniformly to all the employees with effect from 1.1.2006, it goes without saying that the employees who are eligible for the financial upgradation under the erstwhile ACP Scheme are entitled for the said benefit in the new pay structure. Since all the petitioners in the instant case have completed 24 years of continuous service much prior to the introduction of MACP Scheme, in the ordinary course, the Screening Committee ought to have considered the case of the petitioners for grant of second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. If for any reason the Screening Committee has delayed in granting the benefit of second financial upgradation to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be penalized for the laxity or inaction of the Screening Committee. The right of the petitioners for the II-ACP having been crystallized much before the introduction of the MACP Scheme, the said benefit cannot be taken away by retrospective application of the MACP Scheme. 11. The right of the petitioners for the II-ACP having been crystallized much before the introduction of the MACP Scheme, the said benefit cannot be taken away by retrospective application of the MACP Scheme. 11. It is a cardinal principle of law that benefits acquired under existing rules cannot be taken away by amending the Rules with retrospective effect. The retrospective date fixed under clause 9 of the MACP Scheme has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by introducing a Modified Assured Progression Scheme. The MACP Scheme having been devised to off-set the opportunities of regular promotion to the employees, denial of the said benefit to a section of the employees who fall within the bracket is arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is also important to note that the retrospective application of the MACP Scheme has the effect of adversely affecting the conditions of service of the petitioners in as much as the petitioners who have already completed 24 years in the same cadre are required to wait for another term of ten years to get the second financial upgradation, whereas the similarly placed employees who have availed the ACP just on the eve of the cut-off date would be entitled for III-ACP Scheme much earlier than the petitioners. Given the age of the petitioners, even the possibility of getting the second financial up-gradation by the petitioners is remote as in all likelihood most of the petitioners would retire before completing the term of ten years prescribed under MACP Scheme. This is an invidious discrimination and has the effect of unreasonably restricting the conditions of service of the petitioners in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 13. The Tribunal has failed to advert its mind to the above facts and has proceeded to uphold the notification solely on the ground that the petitioners have availed the benefits of revised pay bands and grade pay with effect from 1.9.2008. The revised pay bands and grade pay having been availed even by the other employees who have been granted the ACP Scheme subsequent to 1.1.2006, there is absolutely no reason to deny the said benefits to the petitioners on the purported ground. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we do not find any justifiable reason to uphold the impugned order. 14. The revised pay bands and grade pay having been availed even by the other employees who have been granted the ACP Scheme subsequent to 1.1.2006, there is absolutely no reason to deny the said benefits to the petitioners on the purported ground. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we do not find any justifiable reason to uphold the impugned order. 14. As the right of the petitioners to get second financial up-gradation under the erstwhile ACP Scheme had crystallized much before the introduction of MACP Scheme, the said right cannot be negated by retrospective operation of the MACP Scheme. On careful reading of O.M. dated 19.5.2009, we are of the considered view that the retrospective application of the MACP Scheme is detrimental to the rights of the petitioners and is discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As a result, we hold that para 9 of the O.M. dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure-A7) in so far as making the MACP Scheme applicable to the petitioners with retrospective effect from 1.9.2008 is bad in law. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for grant of II-ACP in terms of the erstwhile ACP Scheme. To that extent, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, we pass the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petitions are allowed. (ii) It is held that para 9 of the O.M. dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure-A7) in so far as making the MACP Scheme applicable to the petitioners with retrospective effect from 1.9.2008 is bad in law. (iii) Consequently, the common order dated 10.3.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru in O.A.Nos.1086-1091 of 2014 and 897-905 of 2015 in so far as making the MACP Scheme applicable to the petitioners with retrospective effect from 1.9.2008 is set-aside. (iv) Petitioners are entitled for consideration of grant of II-ACP benefits in terms of the erstwhile ACP Scheme. (O.M. dated 9.8.1999) (v) Respondents are directed to place the representations of the petitioners before the Screening Committee for consideration of grant of second financial upgradation to the petitioners as per the ACP Scheme (O.M. dated 9.8.1999).