AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:
“(i). call for the Records of this matter from the respondents;
(ii). declare that the applicant is entitled to get 1st financial upgradation under MACPS w.e.f. 01.9.2008, on completion of 10 years of service
(iii). quash & set aside the impugned Orders dt. 26.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) & dt. 10.3.2025(Annexure A-9), issued by respondent no.3/ Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Jalandhar Division & respondent no.2/ Director Postal Services, Punjab, West Region, Chandigarh respectively;
(iv). direct the respondents to grant 1st financial upgradation to the applicant under MACPS w.e.f. 01.9.2008 with all consequential benefits including reissue of PPO (Pension Payment Order) & arrears of Pay & allowances & post retiral benefits within given time frame
(v). direct the respondents to pay interest on all arrears of pay & allowances at 12% rate of interest.
(vi)allow the present OA with cost in favour of the applicant
(vii)grant any other relief deemed appropriate in the interest of Justice in the facts & circumstances of this case”
Brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicant, are that the applicant joined the respondent Department as ED BPM on 01.12.1982 and proceeded on deputation to the Army Postal Service (APS) in 1991 as Sepoy, whereupon he was granted a technical appointment to Group ‘D’ in the parent civil department w.e.f. 10.04.1991. The posts of Group ‘D’ were subsequently redesignated as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. While serving in APS, the applicant was appointed as Postman through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) w.e.f. 01.06.1996 and allotted to Jalandhar Division vide order dated 21.06.1996 issued by respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-2).
It is submitted that pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the respondents introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme vide letter dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure A-3), providing for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service, w.e.f. 01.09.2008, with regular service reckoned from the date of joining the post in the direct-entry grade on a regular basis. The applicant contends that he was denied the first financial upgradation despite being eligible for the same, whereas his second financial upgradation was granted w.e.f. 01.09.2008 vide memorandum dated 18.04.2011 (Annexure A-4), followed by the third financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.09.2018. He retired from service as Mail Overseer on superannuation on 30.06.2023.
The applicant submitted a representation dated 05.11.2024 to respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-5), claiming the first financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.09.2008 on completion of 10 years of regular service. He asserted that other Postmen appointed through the same order as him, whose names appeared at serial Nos. 15 to 23 and 39 of the order dated 18.04.2011 Annexure A-6), had been granted the benefit, whereas his claim had been arbitrarily rejected.
The applicant relied upon the judgment in D. Siva Kumar v. Union of India, upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP(C) No.30629/2014 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. D. Siva Kumar (SLP (C) No.4848/2016, wherein appointment through LDCE was treated as a step in career progression and not as a promotion. Respondent No. 3, however, rejected the claim vide letter dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure A-1), stating that the applicant’s appointment as Postman w.e.f. 01.06.1996 constituted a promotion from the MTS cadre and that the first financial upgradation stood exhausted on such promotion, unlike the other officials who had directly joined as Postmen on the same date.
Aggrieved thereby, the applicant submitted a further representation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure A-7) to respondent No. 2, Director Postal Services, reiterating his entitlement to the first financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme dated 18.09.2009 w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and contending that denial of the benefit, while extending it to similarly placed Postmen, was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He also pointed out that, while granting him the second financial upgradation, the respondents had granted him Grade Pay of ₹2,400/-, whereas the other Postmen appointed along with him were granted Grade Pay of ₹2,800/- vide order dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure A-8). The said representation was also rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure A-9).
The applicant has contended that the issue regarding treatment of appointment through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the purpose of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is no longer res integra and stands settled by judicial precedents. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in Bhanwar Lal Regar v. Union of India and Others, O.A. No. 382/2010, which held that appointment through a competitive examination constitutes career advancement through selection and not promotion, a view affirmed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 10.08.2018 and 20.09.2018 in the relevant SLPs.
The respondents filed written statement opposing the applicant’s claim for grant of first financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008, submitting that the applicant was appointed in the Group ‘D’/MTS cadre on 10.04.1991 and was promoted to the post of Postman through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) w.e.f. 01.06.1996, which constituted his first financial upgradation.
It is further submitted that the second MACP was granted w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and the third w.e.f. 01.09.2018 vide letter dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure R-1). It is contended that the MACP Scheme provides for a maximum of three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service, or 10 years of continuous service in the same pay level, whichever is earlier, and that the applicant has already availed all admissible benefits. The respondents maintain that the promotion earned through LDCE cannot be excluded while counting financial upgradations and that the applicant’s case has been dealt with in accordance with the DoPT O.M. No. 35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) dated 19.05.2009 and the applicable clarifications.
The respondents have further relied upon the decision in S. Vasimalai v. Department of Posts, dated 27.01.2025, wherein the Division Bench held that appointment of Postmen/Group ‘D’ officials as Postal Assistants through LDCE constitutes promotion and not direct recruitment. They have also relied upon the notification dated 30.08.2023 issued by the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, which provides for promotion through LDCE from the MTS cadre subject to the prescribed eligibility conditions regarding regular service. On this basis, the respondents submit that the applicant’s appointment as Postman through LDCE was rightly treated as a promotion and counted as his first financial upgradation.
The applicant has filed rejoinder, reiterating the averments made in the main O.A.
Further the applicant has relied upon judgment of this Tribunal in O.A No.607/PB/2012 in Kharaiti Lal & ors v UoI, upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 24.02.2026 in CA No.4432/2019, wherein it has been held that Selection through LDCE for a higher post cannot be treated as promotion and the applicants therein were held entitled for 3rd financial upgradation.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the material available on record.
From the pleadings itself, it is an admitted fact that the applicant was appointed as Postman through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) with effect from 01.06.1996 and was allotted Jalandhar Division vide order dated 21.06.1996 (Annexure A-2). The MACP Scheme was introduced by the Department of Posts vide O.M. dated 18.09.2009, with effect from 01.09.2008, providing for three financial upgradations at 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service, subject to the conditions of the Scheme.
The applicant was granted second financial upgradation/MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 and subsequently third MACP with effect from 01.09.2018. The applicant ultimately retired from service on superannuation on 30.06.2023. After retirement, the applicant raised the issue regarding non-grant of the alleged first financial upgradation under MACP, by submitting a representation dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure A-5).
The said representation was rejected by the competent authority vide order/letter dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure A-1), principally on the ground that the applicant had already earned a promotion from MTS to Postman with effect from 01.06.1996 and that such advancement was to be counted as his first financial upgradation. The applicant thereafter submitted a further representation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure A-7), which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure A-9).
The dispute in the present O.A. essentially relates to whether the applicant’s appointment as Postman through LDCE w.e.f. 01.06.1996 is to be treated as a promotion/financial upgradation for the purpose of the MACP Scheme.
This Tribunal in OA No.607/PB/2012 has held that selection through LDCE for a higher post cannot be treated as promotion and held the applicants therein entitled for 3rd financial upgradation under MACP. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:
“9.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is observed that the content of para 3 of OM dated 28.6.2011 appears to have been prescribed by SSP Amritsar Division, on his own as there is no mention in the OMs of 19.5.2009 and 18.9.2009 or any other clarification brought on record by the applicants/respondents that in case of appointment to a higher post after participation in LDCE, such appointment is to be treated as one promotion and if a person has got financial upgradations under TBOP and BCR, he/she will not be entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. Moreover, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur has already adjudicated in the matter on 22.5.2012 while deciding OA. No. 353/2011 wherein it had been held that selection through LDCE for a higher post cannot be treated as promotion and applicants who were Postal Assistants, were held to be entitled for the 3rd financial A upgradation under MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008.
10.In view of the above position, the O.A is allowed and the applicants are held entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP w.e.f 1.9.2008. No costs”
Respondents thereafter approached Hon’ble High Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.5278 of 2015 (CWP 4829-2015 and connected matters), whereby the Hon’ble High Court set aside the order of this Tribunal. The same was further challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.26561/2019. Hon’ble Apex Court while setting aside the order passed by Hon’ble High Court, upheld the order of this Tribunal. Relevant para of same is as under:
“1)Leave granted.
2)In consequence of the aforesaid order of dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 2019 and connected matters, the impugned orders of the respective High Courts stand set aside. Consequently, these appeals stand allowed with direction to the respondents to comply with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In view of the pleadings and the material on record, we find merit in the applicant’s contention that his appointment as Postman w.e.f. 01.06.1996 through LDCE was the result of a process of selection and constituted career advancement, and could not be treated as a promotion for the purpose of counting financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. Consequently, we held that the respondents erred in treating the said appointment as the applicant’s first financial upgradation and, on that basis, treating the MACP granted w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as second MACP.
In view of such a position, this O.A. is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) and 10.03.2025 (Annexure A-9) are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-determine the applicant’s entitlement to financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme by excluding his appointment as Postman through LDCE w.e.f. 01.06.1996 from the count of financial upgradations and the applicant be granted 1st financial upgradation under MACPS w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Consequential benefits, including re-fixation of pay and retiral benefits, if any, shall be extended to the applicant in accordance with the applicable rules. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.