AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s) :-
“(a)Quash and set aside the impugned contention put-forth in the reply communication made vide dt. 19.11.2016 (A-1) which is in reply to the Applicants Legal Notice dt. 8.11.2016 and direct the Respondents to consider the Applicants Cause for accord of MACP benefit as per the Scheme.
(b)Direct the respondents to refix the Applicants Pay by accord of MACP benefit w.e.f. the date it has became applicable in the Applicants case by computing the arrears of pay resultantly by giving benefit of MACP with making payment thereof with interest 9% p.a.
(c)Direct also the respondents to refix their pay appropriately as became due for refixation under the VII Central Pay Revision became effective w.e.f. 1.1.2016.”
The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicants, are that Applicant-1, Shri Rameshwar Dayal, was initially inducted in Group 'D' cadre on 24.04.1983. He was thereafter appointed as Postman on 28.09.1986 after qualifying the Departmental Competitive Examination and subsequently appointed as Postal Assistant (Time Scale) on 23.09.1991 through Departmental Competitive Examination. On completion of 16 years of regular service, he was granted financial upgradation under the TBOP (Time Bound One Promotion) Scheme.
Applicant- 2, Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, was initially engaged as an Extra Departmental Agent on 03.09.1984. As pleaded by him, he was thereafter appointed as Postman w.e.f. 18.08.1990 and subsequently appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 23.03.1995. Upon introduction of the MACP Scheme, his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.5200-20220 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- vide communication dated 24.05.2010, with the benefit being given w.e.f. 01.09.2008.
The grievance of the applicants is that their advancement to the Postal Assistant cadre through Departmental Competitive Examination has been treated as promotion for the purpose of MACP. In the case of Applicant No.1, the MACP benefit in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- initially granted to him was subsequently treated as irregular pursuant to an internal audit objection and withdrawn. The applicants claim that such appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre cannot be counted as a promotion for determining their entitlement to financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. They accordingly submitted representations seeking the consequential benefits, relying upon various judicial pronouncements, which led to the filing of the present Original Application.
The respondents, in their Counter Affidavit, have opposed the claim of the applicants on the ground that the permissible number of three promotions/financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme has already been exhausted. In the case of Applicant-1, the respondents have counted his movement from Group 'D' to Postman, from Postman to Postal Assistant and from Postal Assistant to TBOP as three promotions/financial upgradations. Accordingly, the subsequent grant of MACP-II in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- was treated as an irregular fourth financial upgradation and was withdrawn pursuant to the audit objection.
In respect of Applicant-2, the respondents have taken the stand that his regular entry into the Department was as Postman w.e.f. 19.08.1990 and his subsequent appointment as Postal Assistant constituted his first promotion. According to the respondents, he was thereafter granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and his third financial upgradation would become due on completion of the prescribed period, i.e. w.e.f. 31.08.2018. Thus, according to the respondents, the claim of Applicant-2 for grant of the third financial upgradation from an earlier date is not sustainable.
In their Rejoinder Affidavit, the applicants have reiterated that their appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre was through Departmental Competitive Examination and, therefore, could not be treated as a promotion for the purpose of MACP. They have also pointed out the discrepancy, as alleged by them, in the respondents’ records regarding the initial appointment of Applicant-1 and relied upon the judicial pronouncements cited in the Original Application. They have further referred to the case of D. Siva Kumar, wherein the Department of Posts subsequently granted MACP-III w.e.f. 01.09.2008, contending that his case is similarly situated and supports their claim.
Learned counsel for the applicants, referring to the pleadings and the material available on record, advanced the following submissions in support of his claim: -
The appointment of the applicants to the post of Postal Assistant was made pursuant to a Departmental Competitive Examination and constituted entry into the Postal Assistant cadre. Such appointment, therefore, could not be treated as a promotion from the feeder cadre for the purpose of determining the number of financial upgradations admissible under the MACP Scheme. Consequently, the earlier movement from Group ‘D’/Postman to the Postal Assistant cadre could not be counted as a promotion merely for the reason that the applicants were already serving in the Department.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Shakeel Ahmad Burney, W.P.(C) No.4131/2014, decided on 05.08.2014, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11336/2012, decided on 10.08.2015 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P. No.30629/2014, decided on 04.02.2015 and contended that appointment to the post of Postal Assistant through the prescribed competitive examination could not be treated as a promotion for the purpose of MACP.
Learned counsel further referred to the case of D. Siva Kumar, wherein, according to the applicants, the Department, upon review, extended the benefit of MACP-III w.e.f. 01.09.2008 by treating the relevant cadre entry in accordance with the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the applicants. It is contended that the service particulars of the applicants being substantially similar, they could not be denied the same treatment.
Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the subsequent order of the Apex Court dated 24.02.2026 passed in Union of India v. E. Sreeramulu and connected matters, as well as the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA No.320/2021, Mahendra Pal Singh v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 23.07.2026 and OA No.330/364/2019, Subash Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 14.08.2026 and submitted that the controversy raised in the present Original Application is covered by the aforesaid judicial developments and accordingly, the applicants are entitled to consequential benefits under the MACP Scheme.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in opposition to the claim of the applicants, advanced the following submissions: -
Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Applicant-1, the Department has rightly counted the successive advancements from Group ‘D’ to Postman, from Postman to Postal Assistant and from Postal Assistant to TBOP as three promotions/financial upgradations. Consequently, the subsequent grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- was treated as a fourth financial upgradation and was found irregular during audit. The amount paid pursuant thereto was accordingly recovered.
The applicants underwent a departmental/competitive examination for their subsequent appointment did not, according to the respondents, alter the nature of the advancement for the purpose of determining the admissible number of promotions/financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. The applicants, having already availed three advancements, could not claim a further financial upgradation beyond the three permissible financial upgradations.
In respect of Applicant-2, learned counsel submitted that his regular entry into the Department was as Postman and his appointment as Postal Assistant constituted the first promotion. He was thereafter granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008. His third financial upgradation was admissible only on completion of the prescribed period and was accordingly due w.e.f. 31.08.2018.
The action of the respondents was in accordance with the MACP Scheme and the applicable departmental instructions. The judgments relied upon by the applicants, according to learned counsel, did not justify grant of the relief claimed in the present Original Application.
We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings and material available on record.
The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the appointment of the applicants to the post of Postal Assistant through the Departmental Competitive Examination is to be treated as a promotion from the feeder cadre for the purpose of determining their entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and, consequently, whether the respondents have correctly reckoned the applicants’ previous advancements while determining their MACP entitlement.
So far as Applicant No.1 is concerned, the applicants have pleaded that he was inducted in Group ‘D’ cadre on 24.04.1983, thereafter appointed as Postman pursuant to a Departmental Competitive Examination and subsequently appointed as Postal Assistant through another Departmental Competitive Examination. The respondents, while disputing certain particulars regarding his initial appointment and the date of his appointment as Postman, do not dispute that his appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre was preceded by a Departmental Competitive Examination. The respondents have, however, treated his movement from Group ‘D’ to Postman, from Postman to Postal Assistant and from Postal Assistant to TBOP as three successive promotions/financial upgradations and, on that basis, have treated the subsequent grant of financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as a fourth financial upgradation.
In the case of Applicant-2, the respondents have taken the position that his regular entry into the Department was as Postman w.e.f. 19.08.1990 and his subsequent appointment as Postal Assistant constituted his first promotion. According to the respondents, he was thereafter granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and became eligible for the third financial upgradation w.e.f. 31.08.2018. The applicant, however, claims the said financial upgradation from 23.03.2015. Thus, the respondents do not dispute his entitlement to the third financial upgradation in principle; the dispute essentially relates to the date from which such benefit is admissible, having regard to the manner in which his appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre is to be reckoned.
The question as to whether appointment to the cadre of Postal Assistant through a Departmental Competitive Examination is to be treated as a promotion or as an entry into the Postal Assistant cadre has been the subject matter of consideration before different Benches of this Tribunal and various High Courts. The judicial record placed before us reflects divergent views on the issue. While certain decisions have treated such appointment as a promotion for the purpose of MACP, other decisions have taken the view that appointment through the prescribed competitive examination constitutes entry into the Postal Assistant cadre and is not to be counted as a promotion. The subsequent judicial developments, including the proceedings before the Apex Court in Union of India v. E. Central Administrative TribunalSreeramulu and connected matters and the subsequent decisions of this Tribunal, therefore assume significance in determining the present controversy.
In Union of India v. E. Sreeramulu and connected matters, the Apex Court, by order dated 24.02.2026, considered a batch of matters arising from orders passed by different High Courts and Tribunals concerning the aforesaid issue. While dealing with the connected matters, the Apex Court did not finally determine the question of law and, in the matters dismissed by it, expressly left the question of law open. The Apex Court observed:
“Considering the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the present civil appeal and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed, leaving the question of law open.” At the same time, in the connected matters where directions for implementation of the orders passed by the Tribunal/High Court were issued, the concerned authorities were directed to comply with such directions. Thus, the aforesaid order of the Apex Court has to be understood in the context of the individual matters dealt with therein and cannot, by itself, be construed as a general declaration conclusively determining the entire controversy.
The aforesaid subsequent judicial development was considered by this Tribunal in OA No.320/2021, Mahendra Pal Singh v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 23.07.2026, wherein the applicant had initially been appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee and thereafter entered the Postal Assistant cadre after qualifying the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The respondents had treated such appointment as a promotion from the Group ‘D’ cadre. While considering the said controversy, this Tribunal recorded as follows:
“It is not in dispute that the applicant was initially appointed as a Group 'D' employee in the Department of Posts on compassionate grounds on 14.09.1987. Thereafter, he appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on 29.05.1994 for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant. After qualifying the said examination, he was appointed as Postal Assistant vide order dated 23.11.1995 and joined as Postal Assistant on 30.06.1996. The respondents have treated the applicant's appointment as Postal Assistant through the LDCE as a promotion from the Group 'D' cadre……………………” The Tribunal, after considering the aforesaid issue and the subsequent order of the Apex Court in Union of India v. E. Sreeramulu, allowed the Original Application and directed the respondents to extend the benefit flowing from the said judgment. The operative direction reads:
“……………The impugned order dated 31.12.2019 is, hereby, set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits to the applicant flowing from the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court………….” The said decision is directly relevant to the controversy involved in the present Original Application.
The same issue thereafter came to be considered by this Tribunal in OA No.330/364/2019, Subash Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 14.08.2026. The facts involved therein were also substantially similar, as the applicant had entered the Postal Assistant cadre through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and the Department had treated such appointment as a promotion for the purpose of MACP. Upon consideration of the judicial developments, this Tribunal observed:
“From perusal of the records, it appears that the issue involved in this Original Application regarding Postal Assistant through the LDCE was not a promotion, but a direct entry appointment to the Postal Assistant Cadre through a competitive examination and for the purpose of MACP, the services should have been counted from the date of Postal Assistant Cadre, is now no more res integra as the similar issue fell for consideration before Apex Court in SLP (C) No.4432/2019 in case of Union of India Vs. E Sreeramulu.” The Tribunal thereafter held:
“As the facts and controversy involved in this Original Application is squarely covered by the aforesaid Order/Judgment, this Original application is disposed of finally in terms of the orders/directions issued in Original Application No.320/2021 in case of Mahendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) passed by this Tribunal, which shall be applicable in this case mutatis mutandis.” The Tribunal further directed the respondents to extend similar Central Administrative Tribunalbenefits to the applicant in terms of the order passed in OA No.320/2021, within a period of twelve weeks. The aforesaid decision, being a recent decision of this Tribunal on the same issue, is of direct relevance to the controversy involved in the present Original Application.
Applying the aforesaid judicial developments to the case of Applicant-1, we find that his case is materially similar to the cases considered in the aforesaid proceedings. The respondents themselves acknowledge that his appointment as Postal Assistant was preceded by a Departmental Competitive Examination. The fact that such examination was conducted for departmental candidates cannot, by itself, be determinative of the nature of the appointment for the purpose of MACP. What is material is whether the appointment was made against the Postal Assistant cadre through the prescribed competitive selection process, or whether it was a promotion from a recognised feeder cadre. In the present case, the appointment of Applicant-1 as Postal Assistant was pursuant to such competitive examination. In view of the judicial position noticed above, the same cannot be treated as a promotion merely because the applicant was already serving in the Department.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judicial position mentioned above, the appointment of Applicant No.1 to the Postal Assistant cadre through the Departmental Competitive Examination cannot be counted as a promotion for the purpose of determining the number of financial upgradations admissible under the MACP Scheme. Consequently, the respondents’ computation of three promotions/financial upgradations by treating the appointment of the applicant as Postal Assistant as a promotion is not sustainable. The consequential withdrawal of the MACP benefit granted to Applicant No.1 on the said basis, therefore, also requires reconsideration.
Central Administrative Tribunal18. We may also notice that in the case of Applicant No.1, the respondents have relied upon the internal audit objection for treating the MACP benefit granted to him in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as irregular, pursuant to which a sum of Rs.64,500/- was recovered. Since the basis on which such benefit was treated as a fourth financial upgradation requires reconsideration in the light of the judicial position noticed above, the consequential recovery would also necessarily depend upon the outcome of such re-determination. The respondents shall, therefore, re-work the applicant’s MACP entitlement by correctly reckoning his service and financial upgradations in accordance with the applicable rules and the aforesaid judicial pronouncements.
As regards Applicant-2, the respondents have themselves acknowledged that he is entitled to the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, but have calculated the same as becoming due w.e.f. 31.08.2018 by treating his appointment as Postal Assistant as a promotion, whereas the applicant claims the benefit from 23.03.2015. Since his appointment as Postal Assistant was through the Departmental Competitive Examination, the said appointment is required to be reckoned in accordance with the judicial position noticed above. Consequently, the date from which the third financial upgradation is admissible is also required to be re-determined on the basis of the correct reckoning of his service in accordance with the aforesaid judicial position.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the entitlement of the applicants under the MACP Scheme requires determination by correctly reckoning their appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre through the Departmental Competitive Examination. The subsequent judicial developments, particularly the proceedings before the Apex Court in Union of India v. E. Sreeramulu and connected matters and the subsequent decisions of this Tribunal in OA No.320/2021 and OA No.330/364/2019, warrant reconsideration of the manner in which the applicants’ earlier advancements have been counted for the purpose of MACP. The applicants are, therefore, entitled to a fresh determination of their MACP entitlement in accordance with the aforesaid position.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider and re-determine the MACP entitlement of Applicant-1 by excluding his appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre through the Departmental Competitive Examination from the count of promotions, and thereafter determine the financial upgradations admissible to him under the MACP Scheme. Upon such re-determination, all consequential benefits, including re-fixation of pay and payment of consequential arrears, shall be extended to him, if otherwise admissible under the applicable rules.
In respect of Applicant-2, the respondents shall similarly reconsider and re-determine the date from which his third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is admissible, after examining the nature of his appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre through the Departmental Competitive Examination and applying the aforesaid judicial position. Consequential benefits, including re-fixation of pay and payment of arrears, shall thereafter be extended to him from the date found due.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If, upon such re-determination, the amount of Rs.64,500/- recovered from Applicant-1 is found to have been wrongly recovered, the same shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.
In view of the foregoing discussion and directions, the present Original Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Central Administrative Tribunal25. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.