JUDGMENT : Bharati Dangre, J. 1. The Writ Petitions listed before us today, raise a common challenge and therefore, we have clubbed them as one group. The Petitioners before us are the employees working under the control of the Principal District And Sessions Court, South Goa District at Margao-Goa and they are aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No. 1 in not considering them for promotion to a higher post despite their claim that they are qualified and eligible. It is specifically the case of the Petitioners before us that by relying upon wrong parameters, the juniors of the Petitioners have been promoted and they have been superseded, putting them in a highly precarious situation. 2. As a leading Petition, we have assimilated the facts from Writ Petition No.1262/2025(Filing) as more or less the grievance of the Petitioners is common and it pertain to their entitlement to a promotional post, independent of consideration of their cases under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). The Petitioner in WP/1262/2025(Filing) was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 01.06.1998 and was conferred the benefit of first MACPS on 15.02.2011 w.e.f. 01.09.2008, i.e. on completion of 10 years of service. He came to be promote to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 24.08.2020 and was granted the benefit of second MACPS on completion of 20 years of service on 04.10.2021 w.e.f. 02.06.2018. According to the Petitioner, he was entitled for the next promotional post of Bench Clerk Grade III/Nazir but this promotion is denied to him on the ground that he has failed to achieve the benchmark "Very good" required for promotion and therefore his case was not considered. From the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, the case of the Respondents could be discerned to the effect that the Petitioner failed to achieve the benchmark of "Very Good" in one or more of the reporting years considered for each departmental promotion and therefore, he was not found fit for promotion in accordance with the uniform standards applicable to all eligible candidates. We find a specific denial to the contention that the promotional orders issued to the juniors are therefore perverse and illegal as the Petitioners have been superseded on account of the fact that he did not meet the benchmark but the persons who were placed lower in the seniority list, did. 3. We find a specific denial to the contention that the promotional orders issued to the juniors are therefore perverse and illegal as the Petitioners have been superseded on account of the fact that he did not meet the benchmark but the persons who were placed lower in the seniority list, did. 3. The Petitioners before us were initially appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk or equivalent post of Stenographer and were conferred with first MACP benefits on completion of 10 years. They were subsequently promoted to a higher post and thereafter conferred with second MACP benefits on completion of 20 years. Their claim is for the next promotional post, either of Nazir/Bench Clerk Grade III, UDC, Superintendent, etc. Their grievance is that they have been bypassed for the next promotion and their juniors are promoted by applying the benchmark of "Very Good" in terms of the Memorandum dated 28.09.2016 and the common grievance of the Petitioners is that the promotion to the next higher post is distinct from their promotion under the MACP. 4. We have heard learned Counsel Mr Vivek Rodrigues, for the Petitioners, Mr Shivan Desai for Respondent No.1, Ms Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for Ms Neha Shirodkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1017 and 1030/2025(F), Mr Balkrishna Sardessai, learned Counsel for the private Respondents No.3 and 4 in WP/1017/2025(Filing) and for Respondent No.5 in WP/1031/2025(Filing) who have been granted benefit of promotion. 5. The gnevance in the Petition is to be appreciated in the background of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 published by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) as regards the subject "Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme" (MACPS) for the Central Government civilian employees. 6. With reference to the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, as regards the MACPS, which made the financial upgradation available in the next higher grade pay scale whenever an employee had completed twelve years of completed service, the Government considered the recommendations Sixth Central Pay Commissions for introduction of MACPS and accepted the same with further modifications to grant financial upgradations under the MACPS at interval of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular continuous service. A Scheme known as "Modified Assured Career Progress Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Government Civilian Employees" was floated in supersession of the previous ACP Scheme and the clarifications issued thereunder, by making it applicable to the employees appointed in Group A, B, C, of Central Government Civilian Employees except the categories set out therein. For conferring the said benefit, a Steering Committee was to be constituted in each Department to consider the case of grant of financial upgradation under the Scheme and the recommendations of the Steering Committee were directed to be placed before the Secretary in case where the Committees constituted in the Ministry of the Department or before the Head of Organisation or the Competent Authorities in other cases, for approval. The Steering Committee was expected to follow a time schedule and meet twice in a financial year as directed, so as to implement the Scheme of avoiding stagnation of the employees by considering them for promotion under the Scheme. 7. The Scheme popularly known as MACPS envisaged placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the revised Pay Scale Band and Grade Pay in accordance with the Schedule appended to the CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008. The financial upgradation under the MACPS was made admissible upto the highest Grade Pay of Rs.12000/- in Pay Band 4. The financial upgradation to be granted was to be awarded on non-functional basis subject to fitness in the hierarchy of Grade Pay within PB-1 to PB-4. The criteria for availing the benefit under the said Scheme, including the counting of 'regular service', was clearly demarcated and certain stipulations were set out subject to which the benefits under the Scheme could be availed. For our ready reference it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant clauses of the Scheme, which dearly contemplated that for grant of financial upgradation there shall be no change in the designation, classification or higher status, however, the financial and other benefits which are linked to the pay drawn by an employee, like the House Rent Allowance, allotment of Government Accommodation would be permitted. The relevant clauses of the said Scheme read thus: "17. The financial upgradation would be on non-functional basis subject to fitness, in the hierarchy of grade pay within the PB-1. Thereafter for upgradation under the MACPS the benchmark of 'good' would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs. The relevant clauses of the said Scheme read thus: "17. The financial upgradation would be on non-functional basis subject to fitness, in the hierarchy of grade pay within the PB-1. Thereafter for upgradation under the MACPS the benchmark of 'good' would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3. The benchmark will be 'Very Good' for financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.7600 and above. 18. In the matter of disciplinary/ penalty proceedings, grant of benefit under the MACPS shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion. Such cases shall, therefore, be regulated under the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and instructions issued thereunder. 19. The MACPS contemplates merely placement on personal basis in the immediate higher Grade pay /grant of financial benefits only and shall not amount to actual/functional promotion of the employees concerned. Therefore, no reservation orders/ roster shall apply to the MACPS, which shall extend its benefits uniformly to all eligible SC/ST employees also. However, the rules of reservation in promotion shall be ensured at the time of regular promotion. For this reason, it shall not be mandatory to associate members of SC/ST in the Screening Committee meant to consider cases for grant of financial upgradation under the Scheme. 20. Financial upgradation under the MACPS shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay/grade pay under the MACPS." 8. By way of illustration, the Scheme also contemplated a scenario where an employee is conferred with the benefit of MACPS and thereafter is also promoted by way of regular promotion and the illustration categorically set out that he will be entitled for only difference in the Pay Scale which was availed by him on being conferred with the MACPS benefit as against the actual promotion on the post on which he stand promoted. 9. On 28.09.2016, the Government of India implemented the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission dated 19.05.2009, by taking into consideration the subsequent clarifications on the FAQs issued by distinct memorandums and directed that these recommendations shall come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2008. 9. On 28.09.2016, the Government of India implemented the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission dated 19.05.2009, by taking into consideration the subsequent clarifications on the FAQs issued by distinct memorandums and directed that these recommendations shall come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2008. While considering the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, it modified some of its recommendations suitably and declared it to be applicable from 01.09.2008. Since a conundrum existed as to what would be the effect of the modified recommendations which are adopted in the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2016, we would briefly refer to the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, which was appointed by the Ministry of Finance to examine, review, evolve and recommend changes that are desirable and feasible regarding the principles that involve emoluments structured including pay, allowances and other facilities/benefits in cash or kind having regard to the rationalisation and simplification thereof in regards to various Departments, Agencies and Services covering Central Government employees, employees of All India Services as well as officers and employees of various other Departments including officers and employees of the Supreme Court. The terms of reference to the Pay Commissions dearly stipulated thus: "(c) To work out the framework for an emoluments structure linked with the need to attract the most suitable talent to Government service, promote efficiency, accountability and responsibility in the work culture, and foster excellence in the public governance system to respond to the complex challenges of modern administration and the rapid political, social, economic and technological changes, with due regard to expectations of stakeholders, and to recommend appropriate training and capacity building through a competency based framework, (d) To examine the existing schemes of payment of bonus, keeping in view, inter-alia, its bearing upon performance and productivity and make recommendations on the general principles, financial parameters and conditions for an appropriate Incentive Scheme to reward excellence in productivity, performance and integrity, (e) To review the variety of existing allowances presently available to employees in addition to pay and suggest their rationalization and simplification with a view to ensuring that the pay structure is so designed as to take these into account," 10. The Committee submitted its report on 19.11.2015 and on perusal of a detailed report, it is revealed that the focus of the Committee with regard to the terms of reference made over to it, had divided the report into distinct parts and we are concerned with Chapter V thereof, which pertain to the Pay Structure since the thrust of the previous Commissions was to propose an improvement in the pay structure by way of simplification and rationalisation. Since the terms of reference (TOR) with regard to the pay structure before the Seventh Pay Revision Commission was to examine, review and recommend changes that are desirable that would govern the emoluments including pay and allowances and other facilities, the Pay Commission was expected to ensure that the pay of the emoluments structure is linked with the need to attract the most suitable talent in the Government Servant, promote efficiency, accountability and responsibility in the work culture and foster excellence in public governance system to respond to the complex challenges of modern administration and rapid political, social, economical and technological changes in regard to the expectation of the stake holders. On examining the existing system which was prevailing in terms of the Sixth Pay Commission, the Committee considered the key demands under the heads of "Grade Pay, Pay Band, uniform fitment factor, entry fee and MACP, etc. Since we are concerned with MACP, the need for review was faced in the view of inadequacy of the benefits accruing from the present MACP formulation and since as per the existing dispensation upward movement in the Scheme was through Grade Pay hierarchy and a financial upgradation as a result of this progression which was expected to be equivalent to one increment plus the difference in the Grade Pay between the existing and next level. The Committee therefore offered the recommendations under these different heads and as far as the MACPS is concerned, the recommendations are to be found in Clause No.5.1.44 and 5.1.45 which reads thus: "Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) 5.1.44 Although a number of demands were received for increasing the frequency of MACP as well as to enhance the financial benefit accruing out of it, this Commission feels that the inherent issues in the existing pay structure owing to which there was widespread resentment have been set right by way of rationalisation of pay levels, abolition of pay band and grade pay Report of the Seventh CPC and introduction of a matrix based open pay structure. Hence, there is no justification for increasing the frequency of MACP and it will continue to be administered at 10, 20 and 30 years as before. In the new Pay matrix, the employees will move to the immediate next level in the hierarchy. Fixation of pay will follow the same principle as that for a regular promotion in the pay matrix. MACP will continue to be applicable to all employees up to HAG level except members of Organised Group 'A' Services where initial promotions up to NFSG are time bound and hence assured. 5.1.45 There is, however, one significant aspect where this Commission feels that a change is required. This is with regard to the benchmark for performance appraisal for MACP as well as for regular promotion. The Commission recommends that this benchmark, in the interest of improving performance level, be enhanced from 'Good' to 'Very Good.' In addition, introduction of more stringent criteria such as dearing of departmental examinations or mandatory training before grant of MACP can also be considered by the government." 11. With these recommendations in mind, the Government of India issued the Memorandum dated 28.09.2016, with reference to the recommendation in Clause No.5.1.44 and 5.1.45 but, on consideration of the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission though the Government accepted the same, it chose to modify Clause No.5.1.44 and 5.1.45 in its applicability to MACP Scheme and in that regard in the Memorandum dated 28.09.2016 specifically directed thus: "2. The 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in para 5.1.44 of its report has recommended inter-alia as follows: "MACP will continue to be administered at 10. 20 and 30 years as before. The 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in para 5.1.44 of its report has recommended inter-alia as follows: "MACP will continue to be administered at 10. 20 and 30 years as before. In the new Pay Matrix, the employee will move to immediate next level in bierarcby. Fixation of pay will follow the same principle as that for a regular promotion in the Pay Matrix. MACPS will continue to be applicable to all employees up to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) level except members of Organised Group 'A' Services." 3. The Government has considered the above recommendation and has accepted the same. In the light of the recommendations of the 7th CPC accepted by the Government, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) will continue to be administered at 10, 20 and 30 years as before. Further, Para 1 and 2 of the existing Scheme (Annexure to this Department's OM No. 35024/3/2008-Estt.D dated 19th May, 2009) will be substituted by the following words:- 1. There shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS as per 7th CPC recommendations, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years services respectively or 10 years of continuous service in the same level in Pay Matrix, whichever is earlier. 2.The MACPS envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher level in the Pay Matrix as given in PART A of the Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. Thus, the level in the Pay Matrix at the time of financial upgradation under the MACPS can, in certain cases where regular promotion is not between two successive levels in the Pay Matrix, be different than what is available at the time of regular promotion. In such cases, the higher level in the Pay Matrix attached to the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the concerned cadre/organisation will be given only at the time of regular promotion." 4. The 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in para 5.1.45 of its report has interalia recommended as follows: "Benchmark for performance appraisal for promotion and financial upgradation under MACPS to be enhanced from 'Good' to 'Very Good'." 5. The Government has considered the above recommendation and has accepted the same. The 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in para 5.1.45 of its report has interalia recommended as follows: "Benchmark for performance appraisal for promotion and financial upgradation under MACPS to be enhanced from 'Good' to 'Very Good'." 5. The Government has considered the above recommendation and has accepted the same. In the light of the recommendations of the 7th CPC accepted by the Government, para 17 of the Scheme (Annexure to OM No. 35024/3/2008-Estt.D dated 19th May, 2009) shall be substituted by the following words:- "17. For grant of financial upgradation under the MACPS, the prescribed benchmark would be 'Very Good 'for all the posts." Declaring that the changes will come into effect from 25.07.2016, i.e. the date of the resolution being notified by the Department of Expenditure, it was also stated that the comprehensive MACP Scheme on acceptance of Central Pay Commission will be issued separately. 12. In the set of Petitions before us, we are confronted with the issue as to whether the directions in Clause no.5 of the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2016 extend to a normal promotion or is it restricted only for promotion and financial upgradation as under the MACPS. Mr Desai, the learned Counsel representing Respondent No.1 has painstakingly submitted before us that since the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, the recommendation contained in Clause no.5.1.45 has to be read as it is, as it contemplate the benchmark for performance appraisal for promotion and financial upgradation under MACPS to be enhanced from "Good" to "Very Good". However, we disagree with the said proposition canvassed by Mr Desai, since the reading of the Office Memorandum and its purpose make it clear that though the Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendations were accepted, when it came to the applicability qua Clause no. 5.1.44 and Clause no.5.1.45 in regards to the Modified Assured Progression Scheme, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) deemed it appropriate to modify the said Clauses as regards its applicability to the MACPS by substituting Clause 5.1.45, directed it to be read thus: "For grant of financial upgradation under the MACPS, the prescribed benchmark would be "Very Good" for all the posts. " 13. " 13. While we find the Respondents making an attempt to justify that while considering the regular promotion also the enhanced benchmark from "Good" to "Very Good" must be made applicable, we disagree as regards the said submission in light of the fact as far as regular promotion which is governed through the procedure prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 08.02.2002, which necessarily has to undergo the process through the Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) has already set out the benchmark of promotion to be "Good". We do not have a case before us that the Pay Scale in which the Petitioners are situated, require them to clear a benchmark of "Very Good" as it is not disputed that the Petitioners would fall in Clause 3.4, where the mode of promotion is 'selection' and the benchmark for promotion as declared is "Good". As far as the revised Memorandum dated 28.09.2016 with reference to its subject it only pertains to the MACPS and when we read the said Memorandum in the backdrop of clause 5.1.44 and 5.1.45 on the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission, it is evidently clear to us that it pertains only to promotion in the MACP Scheme and not a regular promotion. A regular promotion is a completely different mechanism which has to be undertaken through the DPC and the recommendations of the Pay Commission were restricted as regards the Pay Scales and did not deal with a regular promotion and since the Grade Pay, revised pay as well as the pay under the MACPS was under scrutiny with the Central Pay Commission, we do not agree with Mr Desai that even regular promotions through DPC are also governed by the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2016 which has been adopted by the Government of Goa by issuing an Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2017, w.e.f 30.11.2016 thereby implementing the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations. It is to be borne in mind that though the recommendations of the Pay Commission are adopted, the Government itself modified its applicability in certain situations and therefore when the Government of Goa has adopted these recommendations, it obviously has done so in its modified form by the Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government. 14. It is to be borne in mind that though the recommendations of the Pay Commission are adopted, the Government itself modified its applicability in certain situations and therefore when the Government of Goa has adopted these recommendations, it obviously has done so in its modified form by the Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government. 14. Since this is the principal question which we have deliberated upon, when the Petitioners cannot be denied the benefits of promotion only on this count as it is also necessary for the DPC to consider the ACRs/APARs for past five consecutive years. In any case, by declaring that for effecting the regular promotion, the benchmark of "Very Good" shall not be made applicable, as we find that as on date what is applicable is the Office Memorandum dated 08.02.2002 or even if this Office Memorandum is amended, any Memorandum relating to DPC which is prevalent shall govern the promotion. We direct the case of the Petitioners to be considered in light of the aforesaid observations and in our view the benchmark set out in Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2016 shall not apply for their regular promotion. Non-consideration of the case of the Petitioners for the next promotion and, in some cases, by superseding them by junior candidates deserve to be set aside. The case of each of the Petitioners, therefore, deserve consideration in the next DPC or special DPC which should be conducted for the said purpose and, if required, the Respondents who have been promoted by applying the benchmark of "Very Good" in supersession of the Petitioners shall be reverted. Hence, we make the Petition absolute in above terms.