RAJESH KAPIL vs Chief Post Master General Up Circle on 3 November 2026

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha , learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

2. ​ The applicant has filed this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, for seeking following relief(s):-

ASHISH KUMAR

A.​The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.04.2016 and further direct the respondent to grant the benefit of one financial upgradation as 2nd MACPS of Grade Pay ₹4,200 with effect from 01.09.2008, as given to other employees, along with 18% interest on payments accrued after such grant of financial upgradation, viz. fixation of pay, payment of retirement dues on such last calculated pay and further arrears of pension with 18% interest, etc. B.​The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously further be pleased to impose exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- as compensation on the respondents for making harassment and mental agony to the applicant. C.​Any other suitable order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be issued. D.​ Award cost of filing the case before the Hon'ble Tribunal in favour of the applicant.

3. ​ The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the the applicant was initially appointed as a Group 'D' employee in the Saharanpur Postal Division on 16.08.1980. Upon the creation of the separate State of Uttarakhand, he came under the administrative control of the respondents. After completion of approximately eight years of service, he was promoted to the post of Postal Assistant with effect from 23.04.1988. Subsequently, in May 2004, he was granted the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) benefit. The Government introduced the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008, providing for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, subject to the prescribed conditions. The applicant retired from service on 31.07.2010. His grievance is that he was not granted the financial upgradation claimed by him under the MACP Scheme. Applicant has also approached earlier this Tribunal by filing the OA no. 39/2014 which was decided on 17.06.2015. Thereafter a review application (RA no. 05/2015) was also filed by the applicant which was dismissed on 16.11.2015 with the liberty to the applicant to file fresh representation before the respondents. Thereafter applicant submitted representations to the departmental authorities seeking the benefit. However, his claim was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2016, Hence the instant OA has been filed.

ASHISH KUMAR

4. ​ In counter affidavit, respondents have submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee in the Department of Posts on 16.08.1980 and was promoted to the cadre of Postal Assistant with effect from 23.04.1988 after passing the departmental examination. Upon completion of 16 years of regular service in the Postal Assistant cadre, he was granted financial upgradation under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme with effect from 13.05.2004. The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, introduced with effect from 01.09.2008, provides for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service, subject to the prescribed conditions. The applicant retired on superannuation on 31.07.2010, after rendering 29 years, 11 months and 5 days of regular service, and had already received two career advancements, namely promotion to the post of Postal Assistant and financial upgradation under the TBOP Scheme. It was contended that the applicant had neither completed 30 years of regular service nor rendered 10 years of service in the last grade/cadre after the TBOP upgradation, as required for grant of the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. His earlier Original Application No. 331/00039 of 2014 had been decided by the Tribunal on 17.06.2015, and the subsequent Review Application No. 331/0005 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2015, with liberty to make a representation. The applicant's representation was thereafter considered, but his claim was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2016 on the ground that he had not fulfilled the requisite service conditions. It is further submitted that the applicant's ACR grading had already been upgraded from ‘Average’ to ‘Good’, but such upgradation did not confer an independent right to the third MACP benefit.

5. ​ In rejoinder applicant has controverted the submissions made by the respondents and submitted that the applicant's appointment to the post of Postal Assistant after qualifying the departmental competitive examination could not be treated as a promotion for the purpose of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, as such appointment was in the nature of direct recruitment. It was contended that various Benches of this Tribunal, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the

ASHISH KUMAR

Hon'ble Madras High Court had considered the issue and held that appointment to the post of Postal Assistant through a competitive examination could not be treated as a promotional advancement for the purpose of MACP benefits. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in Bhanwar Lal Regar v. Union of India and Others and D. Sivakumar v. Union of India and Others, as well as the subsequent proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents had failed to consider the subsequent clarification dated 25.04.2011 issued by the Department of Posts while relying upon the earlier clarification dated 18.10.2010. It was argued that the applicant's earlier Original Application No. 331/00039 of 2014 had been decided on 17.06.2015 in the context of the ACP Scheme, which was not applicable to the Postal Assistant cadre, and that the Review Application was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file fresh representation. The applicant contended that the respondents could not repeatedly raise grounds contrary to the judicial decisions relied upon by him and that the appointment to the post of Postal Assistant ought not to be counted as the first financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Accordingly, it was submitted that the rejection of his claim for the admissible financial upgradation was arbitrary and contrary to the applicable departmental clarifications and judicial orders.

6. ​ Heard learned counsel for the parties .

7. ​ Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 28.04.2016, whereby the applicant's claim for grant of the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme was rejected, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the applicant was initially appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee on 16.08.1980 and, after qualifying the departmental competitive examination, was appointed as Postal Assistant with effect from 23.04.1988. The principal contention of the learned counsel was that the applicant's appointment to the post of Postal Assistant through the departmental competitive examination ought to be treated as direct recruitment to a different cadre and not as a promotion for the purpose of counting financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. It was argued that

ASHISH KUMAR

the selection to the post of Postal Assistant was made through a competitive examination and that the relevant recruitment rules did not provide for promotion to the said post from the post of Group ‘D’ in the conventional sense. Therefore, such appointment could not be counted as the first promotional advancement for determining the applicant's entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was granted the TBOP financial upgradation with effect from 13.05.2004 and that the respondents, by treating his appointment as Postal Assistant as the first promotion and the TBOP benefit as the second financial upgradation, had erroneously denied him the benefit claimed under the MACP Scheme. It was argued that the Department of Posts' clarification dated 25.04.2011, which was subsequently relied upon in judicial proceedings, had not been properly considered by the respondents, who continued to rely upon the earlier clarification dated 18.10.2010. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by various Benches of this Tribunal, particularly the Jodhpur Bench in Bhanwar Lal Regar v. Union of India and Others, the Madras Bench in D. Sivakumar v. Union of India and Others, and the decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court affirming the view that appointment to the post of Postal Assistant through a competitive examination could not be treated as a promotion for the purpose of MACP benefits. It was also submitted that the applicant's earlier Original Application No. 331/00039 of 2014 had been disposed of on 17.06.2015 in the context of the ACP Scheme, whereafter the Review Application No. 331/0005 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2015, with liberty to make a representation. Consequently, the present Original Application was filed after the respondents rejected his representation vide order dated 28.04.2016. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant's ACR grading had subsequently been upgraded from ‘Average’ to ‘Good’, and that the respondents had failed to consider the cumulative effect of the relevant departmental clarifications, and the applicant's service particulars while deciding his claim. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondents had wrongly treated the appointment as Postal Assistant as a promotion, resulting in the denial of the financial

ASHISH KUMAR

upgradation claimed by the applicant. Hence prayer was made to quash the impugned order and allow the instant OA with the direction to the respondents to grant the admissible financial upgradation with consequential benefits, including refixation of pay, revision of retirement dues and arrears of pension. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance on the following case laws:- ❖​Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of INdia & Ors. vs. E Sreeramulu (Civil Appeal no. 4432/2019) decided on 24.02.2026. ❖​Judgment passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Union of India and Ors. vs Mam Chand, W.P.(C) 13430/2024, decided on 03.09.2016. ❖​Judgment passed by this Bench in OA no. 627/2018 (Sushil Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors), decided on 02.03.2021.

8. ​ Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant and submitted that the issue raised in the present Original Application has already been considered and decided by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the earlier Original Application No. 331/0039 of 2014, vide order dated 17.06.2015. It was further submitted that the applicant had also preferred Review Application No. 331/0005 of 2015, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2015 with liberty to the applicant to make a representation before the competent authority. In pursuance thereof, the applicant submitted a representation, which was duly considered and rejected by the respondents vide order dated 28.04.2016. Learned counsel contended that mere rejection of the representation, pursuant to the liberty granted in the earlier proceedings, would not give rise to a fresh cause of action so as to enable the applicant to reopen an issue which has already attained finality. On merits, it was submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as Group 'D' on 16.08.1980 and was subsequently appointed/promoted as Postal Assistant on 23.04.1988 after qualifying the departmental examination. Thereafter, he was granted the benefit of TBOP with effect from 13.05.2004. The

ASHISH KUMAR

applicant superannuated on 31.07.2010 after rendering 29 years, 11 months and 05 days of regular service and had completed only 06 years, 02 months and 18 days in the TBOP cadre. Therefore, he had neither completed 30 years of regular service nor 10 years of service in the grade pay from the date of his second financial upgradation, as required under the MACP Scheme for grant of third financial upgradation. It was further contended that the applicant's appointment as Postal Assistant cannot be treated as fresh direct recruitment for the purpose of disregarding his earlier service progression, and that the claim for third financial upgradation is contrary to the applicable departmental instructions, particularly the Directorate General of Posts letter dated 18.09.2009. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the respondents placed his reliance on the following case laws:- ❖​Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Union of India and ors. Vs. K.S. Nagaraja. (WP No. 17390/2022) decided on 10.06.2026. ❖​Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Union of India and ors. Vs. D. Srinivasa Rao (WP no. 15596/2021) decided on 03.06.2026. ❖​Judgment passed by this Bench in OA no. 235/2018 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs. Union of India and ors) decided in 04.04.2025.

9. ​ We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

10. ​ Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the impugned order passed in the matter. The same is as under:- सेवा में, श्री राजेश कपिल (सेवा निवृत्त उप डाकपाल) 331 पश्चिमी अम्बर तालाब रुड़की। पत्रांक: बी-1/331/005/2015/राजेश कपिल/2015-16 देहरादून दिनांक 28.04.2016।

ASHISH KUMAR

विषय: सी.ए.टी. इलाहाबाद (सर्किट बेंच नैनीताल) द्वारा पुनर्विलोकन वाद संख्या 331/0005/2015 के संदर्भ में दिनांक जारी निर्णय सम्बन्धी। उपरोक्त विषयगत मामले में सूचित करना है कि आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रतिवेदन दिनांक 09.01.2016 पर परिमंडलीय कार्यालय स्तर पर सक्षम अधिकारी/अपीलिय अधिकारी द्वारा विचार करने के उपरांत पाया गया कि आप तृतीय वित्तीय उन्नयन हेतु आवश्यक सेवा अवधि की पात्रता पूर्ण नहीं करते हैं। अर्थात आप तृतीय वित्तीय उन्नयन के लिये पात्र नहीं हैं। अतः तृतीय वित्तीय उन्नयन के लिये आवश्यक सेवा अवधि की पात्रता की शर्तों के पूर्ण नहीं होने के कारण आपको एम.ए.सी.पी. के अंतर्गत तृतीय वित्तीय उन्नयन का लाभ प्रदान किया जाना संभव नहीं है। प्रवर अधीक्षक डाकघर देहरादून मंडल देहरादून–248001

11. ​ For ready reference, it is pertinent to reproduce the judgment passed in OA no. 39/2014. The same is as under:- open court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL​ ALLAHABAD BENCH​ CIRCUIT SITTING AT NAINITAL DATED: This the 17th day of June, 2015 Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)​ Hon’ble Mr. OPS Malik, Member (A) Original Application No. 331/00039 of 2014 Rajesh Kapil aged about 64 years son of Late Shri Baboo Lal, retired Sub Post Master, Cannaut Place, Dehradun, R/o 331, Paschim Amber Talaab, Roorkee (Uttrakhand) - 247667. ......Applicant

Versus

1. ​ Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. ​ Director General (Posts), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

3. ​ Chief Post Master General, Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun - 248001.

4. ​ Director Postal Services in the office of Chief Post Master General, Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun - 248001.

5. ​ Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Dehradun Division, Dehradun. ......Respondent By Advocate: Shri L.M. Singh​ Shri R.K. Srivastava

O R D E R

Delivered by: Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)

ASHISH KUMAR

None appears for the applicant. Shri L.M. Singh present for the respondents.

2. The O.A is taken up for disposal under Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987.

3. The prayer made in the O.A for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant 3rd financial upgradation to the applicant in terms of MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 with 8% interest. The prayer made read thus:- “(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent to grant benefits of 2nd/3rd M.A.C.Ps of Grade Pay 4200 with effect from 01.09.2008 as given to other employees with arrears alongwith 18% interest.

(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously further be pleased to impose the exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on the respondents for making harassment and mental agony to the applicant.

(iii) Any other suitable order or direction which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be issued.

(iv) Award cost of filing the case before the Hon’ble Tribunal in favour of the applicant.” It is not in dispute that the applicant joined the services of respondent as Group ‘D’ employee in Saharanpur Division on 16.08.1980. Having qualified the departmental examination, he got promotion in the cadre of Postal Assistant w.e.f. 23.04.1998 and on completion of 16 years of regular service he got financial upgradation in terms of TBOP w.e.f. 13.05.2004. Apparently, the applicant got two financial advancements in his career one by way of promotion and second by way of TBOP. The terms of the conditions of ACP Scheme, an employee can either opt for financial upgradation in terms of ACP Scheme dated 09.08.1999 or any other Scheme for financial upgradation. The conditions read thus:- “Conditions for grant of benefits:

(i) The Scheme envisages merely placement in the higher pay scale/ grant of financial benefits (through financial upgradation) only to the Government servant concerned on personal basis and shall, therefore, neither amount to functional/ regular promotion nor would require creation of new posts for the purpose.

(ii) The highest pay scale up to which the financial upgradation shall be available will be Rs. 14,300-18,300 (Fifty pay commission Pay Scale).

(iii) The first financial upgradation under the Scheme will be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial upgradation. If the first upgradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to departmental

ASHISH KUMAR

proceedings, etc. this would have consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get deferred accordingly.

(iv) Two financial upgradation under the scheme in the entire career of an employee will be counted against regular promotions (including in situ and fat-track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit.

(v) If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the Scheme shall accrue to him.

(vi) The period of regular service for grant of benefits under the Scheme will be counted from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit.

(vii) Financial upgradation under the Scheme will be given to the next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a cadre/ category of posts without creating new posts for the purpose.

(viii) The financial upgradation under the Scheme will be purely personal to the employee concerned and will have no relevance to his seniority position.

(ix) On upgradation under the Scheme, pay of an employee will be fixed under the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1). The financial benefit allowed under the Scheme will be final and no pay fixation benefit will accrue at the time of regular promotion, i.e., posting against a functional post in the higher grade.

(x) Grant of higher pay scale under the Scheme shall be conditional to the fact that an employee, while accepting the said benefit shall be deemed to have given his unqualified acceptance for regular promotion on occurrence of vacancy subsequently.

(xi) If an employee, after availing the financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme subsequently refuses to accept the regular promotion, the financial upgradation already granted will not be withdrawn. However, the subsequent financial upgradation will get postponed.

(xii) Existing time-bound promotion schemes, including in situ promotion scheme, in various Departments may, as per choice continue to be operational for the concerned categories of employees; but these schemes will not run concurrently with the Assured Career Progression Scheme - Chapter 54.

4. Once the applicant could avail the benefit of TBOP w.e.f. 13.05.2004, he could not have claimed the benefit of ACP Scheme dated 09.08.1999. Before he could complete 30 years of service, the applicant superannuated on 31.07.2010. Thus, no direction can be issued to the respondents to grant him 3rd financial upgradation. Nevertheless since the applicant was short of 30 years of service only by 25 days, the respondents may examine his case sympathetically and consider relaxing the shortage if permitted by the rules. Subject to the said observation the O.A is disposed of. It

ASHISH KUMAR

is made clear that non adherence to this observation would not be considered as wilful disobedience. No costs.

12. ​ It is also necessary to reproduce the judgment passed in Review application no. 05/2015. The same is as under:- CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,​ Allahabad Bench​ (Circuit Bench at Nainital) Nainital, this the 16th day of November, 2015 Present: Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member-J​ Hon’ble Mr. O.P.S. Malik, Member-A Review Application No. 331/0005/2015 In Original Application No.331/00039/2014 Rajesh Kapil aged about 64 years son of Late Shri Baboo Lal, retired Sub Post Master, Cannaut Place, Dehradun, R/o 331, Paschim Amber Talaab, Roorkee (Uttrakhand)-247667. .......Applicant.

V E R S U S

1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. Director General (Posts), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

3. Chief Post Master General, Uttrakhand Circle, Dehradun-248001.

4. Director Postal Services in the office of Chief Post Master General, Uttrakhand Circle, Dehradun-248001.

5. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Dehradun Division, Dehradun. ...... Respondents Advocate: Shri L.M. Singh

O R D E R

By Hon’ble A.K. Bhardwaj, Member-J: Shri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the appointment of the applicant to the post of Postal Assistant w.e.f. 23.04.1998 should not have been treated as promotion but should be treated as fresh appointment and thereafter on completion of 20 years of his service, he should be given the benefit of MACP Scheme. Since in the original application there was no prayer for such declaration, counsel for the applicant sought permission to withdraw the present review application

ASHISH KUMAR

with liberty to make representation to respondents to treat his appointment as Postal Assistant as fresh appointment.

4. Accordingly, Review Application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty sought by the counsel for the applicant.

13. ​ Perusal of the records reveals that OA no. 39/2014 filed by the applicant has been decided on merit taking recourse to the provision of Rule 15(1) of the CAT Procedure Rule 1987.

14. ​ The principal issue requiring determination is whether the present Original Application raises an independent/fresh cause of action or seeks to reopen a controversy which had already been raised before this Tribunal in the applicant’s earlier Original Application.

15. ​ From the material available on record, it is evident that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in Original Application No. 331/00039 of 2014 in connection with his claim for financial upgradation. The said Original Application was disposed of on 17.06.2015 after consideration of the applicant’s claim in the context of the financial benefits already availed by him and the applicable scheme. The applicant thereafter filed Review Application No. 331/0005 of 2015, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2015, with liberty to make a representation before the competent authority.

16. ​ A perusal of the aforesaid proceedings indicates that the dispute concerning the applicant’s entitlement to further financial upgradation, having regard to his appointment as Postal Assistant and the financial benefit already granted under the TBOP Scheme, had previously been brought before this Tribunal. The subsequent representation was essentially an attempt to secure reconsideration of the same underlying claim by requesting the respondents to treat his appointment as Postal Assistant as a fresh appointment. The liberty granted at the time of withdrawal of the Review Application was confined to making such representation. It did not, by itself, confer an entitlement to the relief claimed or permit the applicant to reopen a matter already adjudicated upon before the same court/Tribunal.

17. ​ It is a settled principle that the mere submission of a representation and its subsequent rejection do not, by themselves, give rise to a fresh cause of action enabling a party to reagitate an issue which has

ASHISH KUMAR

already been adjudicated upon by a competent forum. The nature of the cause of action is determined by the substance of the dispute and not merely by the date or form of the subsequent administrative order. Where the subsequent challenge is founded upon the same service facts and seeks substantially the same relief as was pursued in earlier proceedings, the applicant cannot circumvent the effect of the earlier adjudication merely by submitting a fresh representation and challenging the order passed thereon.

18. ​ In the present case, the impugned order dated 28.04.2016 was passed in response to the applicant’s representation and reiterates the departmental position regarding his eligibility for the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. The rejection of the representation does not, in the circumstances of the present case, alter the essential nature of the controversy or create an independent right to claim the same relief afresh. The applicant has not demonstrated any subsequent change in the relevant service facts or any independent legal entitlement arising after disposal of the earlier proceedings which would justify reopening the original dispute.

19. ​ The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that his appointment as Postal Assistant ought to be treated as direct recruitment rather than promotion has also been considered. However, insofar as the present claim arises from the same service history and the same underlying demand for financial upgradation which formed the subject matter of the earlier proceedings, the applicant cannot use the subsequent rejection of his representation as a means to circumvent the consequences of the previous adjudication. The question is not merely whether a particular interpretation of the MACP Scheme may be available to the applicant, but whether the same claim can be reopened through a fresh Original Application after the earlier proceedings have attained finality in the manner recorded above.

20. ​ It is also relevant that the withdrawal of the Review Application with liberty to submit a representation did not amount to a fresh adjudication of the substantive claim in favour of the applicant. Such

ASHISH KUMAR

liberty enabled the applicant to approach the competent departmental authority; it did not automatically revive the earlier dispute or confer an unrestricted right to institute successive proceedings on the same cause. Acceptance of such a course would permit repeated rounds of litigation on an issue already brought before the Tribunal, thereby undermining the principle of finality in judicial proceedings. It is clarified that since issue involved in the present matter has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal between the same party in earlier OA no. 39/2014, thus, applicant will not get any help with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020 (union of India and ors. Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair) decided on 05.03.2020.

21. ​ In view of the foregoing discussions, when issue raised by the applicant have already been decided in previous OA, i.e., in OA No. 39/2014 and the same as has been raised in the present OA, we are of the considered opinion that the present Original Application, insofar as it seeks to reopen the applicant’s earlier claim for financial upgradation on the same foundational facts and grounds, is not maintainable. OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. ​ All associated M.As also stand disposed of.

(Manju Pandey) ( Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (A) Member (J)

Ashish

ASHISH KUMAR