Om Prakash Sharma vs D/o Post on 23 October 2026

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

Through the present Original Application, the Applicant had sought to challenge the letter dated 15.03.2017 issued by the Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Rajasthan Circle Jaipur, i.e. Respondent No.2 – vide which the request of the Applicant to be allowed the benefit of the third financial up-gradation under MACP after completion of 30 years of qualifying service w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013, had been rejected.

2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant was initially appointed as Sorting Assistant (SA) in the Respondent Department of Posts under Respondent No.2 on 10.02.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Post Offices on 12.07.1996 after passing the required departmental examination. On completion of 24 years of service, the Applicant was granted financial up-gradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme w.e.f. 10.02.2007; and was also later promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Posts (ASP) substantively in 2009. Meanwhile, the MACP Scheme had been introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2008, with provisions for considering and allowing financial up-gradations after completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. Before completing 30 years of continuous regular service, the Applicant was placed under suspension on 27.04.2012 that had continued till 13.11.2012. Subsequently, a Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013 was issued under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [the CCS (CCA) Rules-1965] to the Applicant by the Director Postal Services (HQ), Office of CPMG Rajasthan Circle, i.e. Respondent No.3. Eventually, the said disciplinary proceedings came to be concluded by awarding the punishment of reduction of NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

pay of the Applicant by one stage for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, vide order dated 16.03.2016 of the Respondent No.3, which remained in effect from 16.03.2016 till 16.03.2017. Eventually, vide the Memo dated 01.09.2016 of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bharatpur Postal Division (i.e. Respondent No.4) the Applicant was allowed the third financial up-gradation under the MACP w.e.f. 17.03.2017, i.e. w.e.f. from the date after the expiry of the effect of the punishment imposed upon him as aforesaid ; and was subject further inter alia to the condition that no vigilance/disciplinary case was pending/current against him on the date of upgradation.

The Applicant had submitted a representation dated 07.10.2016 to Respondent No.2 seeking that he be allowed the third financial up-gradation under MACP w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 when he had completed 30 years of regular and continuous service – since on that date, he was neither under suspension nor was served any charge memo before that. The said representation had been disposed of by the impugned letter dated 15.03.2017 of the office of Respondent No.2, whereby it was conveyed that his representation/appeal dated 07.10.2016 against the Order dated 01.09.2016 of Respondent No.4 had been dismissed by the competent authority and third financial up-gradation for him under MACP was to be allowed w.e.f. 17.03.2017 only.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant had filed the present O.A. seeking the substantive relief inter alia – that the Respondents be directed to consider benefits of third financial upgradation to the Applicant w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 instead of 17.03.2017 by modifying the impugned memo dated 01.09.2016 and by quashing the impugned letter dated 15.03.2017 with all consequential benefits including due fixation with difference of pay & allowances ; and that the Respondents be further directed NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

to act as per provisions as regards to DPC and further provisions of the MACP scheme for granting benefits to the Applicant to consider his case for on the basis of position of 2012/2013, with all consequential benefits.

4. It was the case of the Applicant that on 10/13.02.2013 the date when he had completed 30 years of qualifying service, and prior to issuance of charge memo dated 15.02.2013 there was nothing adverse against the Applicant and as such he was entitled to be provided the benefit of third up-gradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 instead of 17.03.2017 as had been provided vide the Memo dated 01.09.2016 of Respondent No.4.

It had further been submitted that the punishment order dated 16.03.2016 itself had in conclusion ordered to treat his suspension period as admissible leave and to count that as qualifying service for promotion and retirement benefits. Without reliance upon any extant statutory provisions/guidelines relating to grant of benefits of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, the Applicant had claimed that such regularization of the period of his suspension from 27.04.2012 to 14.11.2012 was tantamount to counting that period also towards the grant of third financial up-gradation under the MACP Scheme. Further, it had also been contended that the Applicant could not be deprived of such benefits due to him from 10/13.02.2013 on the basis of subsequent issuance of charge memo dated 15.02.2013 and the punishment order dated 16.03.2016. However, the statutory provisions in support of those averments had not been presented.

5. Vide their reply, the Respondents had admitted only to the matters of facts as on record, inter alia – that the Applicant was initially appointed as SA under Respondent No.2 on 10.02.1983 ; that thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Post Offices on NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

12.07.1996, was granted financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 10.02.2007 on completion of 24 years of service and was later promoted substantively in 2009 ; that the Applicant was placed under suspension on 27.04.2012 that had continued till 13.11.2012 ; that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant had yet remained under contemplation/ consideration and subsequently, a Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013 was issued under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules- 1965 to the Applicant by the Respondent No.3 ; and that the said disciplinary proceedings came to be concluded by awarding the punishment of reduction of pay of the Applicant by one stage for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, vide order dated 16.03.2016 of Respondent No.3, which remained in effect from 16.03.2016 till 16.03.2017.

It had also been admitted inter alia – that eventually, vide the Memo dated 01.09.2016 of the Respondent No.4, the Applicant was allowed the third financial up-gradation under the MACP w.e.f. 17.03.2017, i.e. after the expiry of the effect of the punishment imposed upon him as aforesaid ; that the Applicant had submitted a representation dated 07.10.2016 to Respondent No.2 seeking that he be allowed the third financial up-gradation under MACP w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 when he had completed 30 years of regular and continuous service and he was neither under suspension nor was served any charge memo ; and that the said representation had been disposed of by the impugned letter dated 15.03.2017 of the office of Respondent No.2, whereby it was conveyed that his representation/appeal dated 07.10.2016 against the Order dated 01.09.2016 of Respondent No.4 had been dismissed by the competent authority and third financial up- gradation for him under MACP was to be allowed w.e.f. 17.03.2017 only.

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

6. Per contra, it had been submitted by the Respondents that though the Applicant had completed his 30 years of service on 13.02.2013 but third MACP was not allowed to the Applicant w.e.f. 13.02.2013 because the Applicant while working as ASP(HQ), Jaipur (Mfl.) Division remained suspended from 27.04.2012 to 14.11.2012 in a case of demanding Rs. one lakh as illegal gratification from one Om Prakash Sharma, the then CDS Branch Post-Master (BPM), Jopara under account with Bhandarej Sub-Post Office (SO) on 07.03.2011 for arranging/managing his promotion in Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) Cadre. Allegedly further, the Applicant had later accepted Rs.95000/- as illegal gratification on 08.03.2011 for the aforesaid motive. In this case, vide the charge-Memo dated 15.03.2017, the Applicant was charged under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules-1965. The related disciplinary proceedings came to be concluded with a penalty of reduction of one stage for one year without cumulative effect on 16.03.2016. As such, the third upgradation under MACP Scheme was not allowed to the Applicant during the pendency of the disciplinary action/punishment ; but was allowed after expiry of punishment date i.e. 16.03.2017, vide the Office Memo dated 01.09.2016.

7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties on record. The arguments of the learned Counsels for the Applicant and for the Respondents had also been heard.

8. It would emerge from the same that the case of the Applicant had been essentially based on the claim that once he had completed 30 years of regular service on 13.03.2013 and there was no suspension or ongoing disciplinary proceeding against him on that day, he should have been allowed the benefit of third financial upgradation w.e.f. 13.03.2013 itself. Per contra, it had been submitted on part of the Respondents that it was not correct that there had been nothing against the Applicant as on NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

13.03.2013 – because the information related to the Applicant’s alleged misconduct of demanding and accepting illegal gratification on 07/08.03.2011 from the then CDS BPM of Jopara (in account with Bhandarej SO) for arranging/managing his promotion in MTS cadre was very much available with the Respondents and the initiation of disciplinary action was contemplated/under process against the Applicant during the relevant period. Eventually, the charge-Memo dated 15.03.2013 came to be issued in consequence of the same.

9. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the settled position in law – that statutory rules should prevail and must be strictly adhered to and the principles of estoppel and acquiescence cannot apply over and above the eligibility condition having statutory force laid down by statutory rules ; that there can be no estoppel against law and if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal merely by the act of a third person.

Thus, relevantly for the present case, the grant of the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation had to be considered as per the extant guidelines related to MACP and their clarifications as issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel & Training (D.oP.&T.) of the Government of India. While 30 years of regular service was one of the necessary conditions for being considered eligible for the grant of third financial upgradation, it was not shown that the same would necessarily be sufficient by itself – since there could be other prescribed conditions to be fulfilled, such as those pertaining to vigilance clearance, performance benchmarks etc. NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

10. Also relevantly, it was not contested before us that the Applicant had completed 30 years of regular service on 13.03.2013 ; and that he had been allowed only two financial upgradations/promotions by then. However, the proceedings of the Screening Committee conducted in July-2012 or thereafter to consider the cases maturing during October-2012 to March-2013 were not before us ; due to which it was not clear whether the case of the Applicant had come up at that meeting and if so, how that had been dealt with.

The information presented by the parties was largely in terms of blank averments and thus totally inadequate for determination of the issue at the centre of the present O.A., viz. whether the Applicant was eligible to be considered for grant of the benefit of third financial upgradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 13.03.2013 or otherwise, as per the extant statutory provisions/guidelines.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Tribunal was constrained from deciding the issue vide the present O.A. either way. Hence, it is directed that the case of the Applicant in the present O.A. for grant of the third financial upgradation upon completion of 30 years of regular service on 13.03.2013 be reconsidered by the Respondents, by convening a special review meeting of the Screening Committee with reference to the meeting held firstly in July-2012 or after that date, as per the extant provisions for the grant of such benefit under MACP Scheme.

It is further directed that the aforesaid direction is not tantamount to grant of the third financial upgradation to the Applicant w.e.f. 13.03.2013, but for due consideration and appropriate recommendation thereafter in light of the extant statutory NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

provisions/guidelines related to MACP. The exact such provisions relied upon and the recommendations reached as per those provisions by the Screening Committee should be spelt out in the minutes of the aforesaid special review meeting of the Screening Committee. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order by the Respondents.

12. It is further directed that the competent authority for grant of financial upgradations under the MACP shall thereafter consider the recommendation of the aforesaid special review meeting of the Screening Committee for the Applicant’s case duly ; and pass an appropriately detailed and speaking Order, with specific reference to the extant provisions, regarding the admissibility or otherwise of the benefit of the third financial upgradation under MACPS w.e.f. 13.03.2013 to the present Applicant. Such Order of the competent authority shall be issued within a period of eight weeks further from the date of the recommendation made by the special review meeting of the Screening Committee as aforesaid. The Order shall also specifically mention whether the impugned Order dated 01.09.2016 of the Respondent No.4 would continue to hold or whether that would be modified – and if so, in what manner and to what extent.

13. Therefore, the present O.A. is disposed of with the observations and directions as foregoing. No order as to costs.

(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kumawat

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT