GOPINATH MALLICK vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 12 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant challenging the legality of the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Posts, Keonjhar Division in rejecting the representation dated 28.10.2022 of the applicant for grant of 3rd financial up-gradation under MACPs with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- from date of completion of 30 years of qualifying service by the applicant has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) To allow the Original Application. b) To quash the order of the Respondent No. 3 dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure A/3) in rejecting the representation of the applicant for grant of 3rd financial up-gradation under the MACPs after completion of 30 years of service by the applicant in the cadre of Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant. c) To issue direction to the respondents to grant the benefit in the ration of the judgment decided on 05.05.2022 in case of Shri Amit Mathur (supra) by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (Annexure

Kalpeswar Behera

A/1) fixing the pay of the applicant in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- after completion of 30 years of service by the applicant in the cadre of Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant, granting subsequent increment till retirement, disbursing pay fixation arrears and revision of pension and pensionary benefits etc. with interest there on till the payment is made. d) To issue any other order/orders or direction/directions as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and fair play for the benefit of the applicant.

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred stated by the applicant in the OA is as follows: 2.1 That the applicant was initially appointed as Postman w.e.f. 09.05.2070 as per letter of Inspector of Post Offices. Talcher Sub- Division, Dist. Keonjhar vide his memo No. B1-14 dated 09.05.1970.That,the applicant had appeared in Departmental Examination for promotion of lower grade staff to the clerical cadre and was declared successful in the said examination. Said examination was for appointment to the post of Postal clerk now

Kalpeswar Behera is renamed as Postal Assistant. Thereafter, the Applicant has undergone training at Postal Training Centre (PTC), Darbhanga, Bihar and joined in the post of Postal Clerk / Postal Assistant at Dhenkanal Head Post Office w.e.f. 08.04.1975. It is apt to mention here that the appointment / promotion as per Postal Clerk/ Postal Assistant was not a regular promotion as it was through open Departmental Competitive Examination. 2.2 That, as per Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar vide his Memo No. ST/26-5/1989 dated 01.11.19889 after completion of 16 years of service as Postal Assistant, the Applicant was given Time Bound Promotion (TBOP) in the scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 w.e.f. 01.04.1990.That, as per Post Master General Memo No. ST/RO/77-2/92 Ch-iii dated 18.01.2002 read with Supdt. Post Offices, Keonjhar Division, Keonjhargarh Memo No. B88/corr dated 04.02.2002, after completion of 26 years of service in the cadre of Postal Assistant, the Applicant was allowed with next higher scale of pay of Rs. 5000-1500-8000 under Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme w.e.f. 01.07.2001.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.3 That, the Government of India Office Memorandum No.35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) dated 19.05.2009 had introduced MODIFIED ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME (MACPS) for Central Government Civilian employees. Under the scheme, an employee is entitled for financial up-gradation after completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. The scheme was made effective from 01.09.2008 to the employees who have not been allowed with three promotions or financial up-gradations. That it is humbly submitted that the present Applicant after passing the Departmental Examination was joined in the post of Postal Clerk/ Postal Assistant on 08.04.1975.Granted with TBOP benefits on 01.04.1990 and BCR benefits on 01.07.2001. As such, the Applicant is eligible for 3rd Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme after completion of 30 years of service. But, the Applicant is deprived of from getting the legitimate claim. 2.4 That, the Applicant retired from Government service w.e.f. 31.01.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. That, the Applicant came to know that in a similar putting employee namely Jairam Luniwal had filed Original Application No. 114/2019 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur praying for grant of Financial Up-gradation

Kalpeswar Behera in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- under 3rd MACP Scheme after completion of 30 years of service in the post of Postal Clerk/ Postal Assistant cadre. 2.5 That, the Hon'ble CAT. Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide its order dated 05.05.2022 has disposed of the matter with the following directions: "to grant financial benefits of 3 MACP to the Applicant in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- from the date of completion of 30 years of service in the cadre of Postal Assistant, with all consequential benefits. The Applicant shall also be entitled to all arrears accordingly, with interest at the GPF rate being payable on the arrears of the financial upgradation benefits admissible tot the Applicant. Since the Applicant has already voluntarily retired from service, he is entitled for revision of pension and other pensionary benefits accordingly. This exercise shall be carried out by the Respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order." 2.6 That, the Applicant referring the

Judgement

dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in OA No. 114/2019, Judgment passed by the Hon'ble CAT.

Kalpeswar Behera

Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in OA No.

(BhanwarLalRegarVs Union of India &Ors), Judgment passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in OA No. 1088/2011 (D. SivakumarVs Union of India &Ors), OA No. 946/2016 (V.T. TagadinamaniVs Union of India &Ors)& OA No. 852/2016 (G.B. KulkarniVs Union of India &Ors), Judgment passed by the Hon'ble CAT. Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam in OA No. 950/2017 (V.T. EasowVs Union of India &Ors) and Judgment passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in OA No. 93/2019 (Natvarbhai S. MakwanaVs Union of India &Ors) has submitted representation dated 20.10.2022 to the Superintendent of Post Offices. Keonjhar Division, Keonjhargarh (Respondent No-3) for grant of financial upgradation under 3rd MACP with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. 2.7 That, after a long gap of one and half years, the Respondent No-3 vide letter No. B-89/Ch-IV dated 29.04.2024 had rejected the case of the Applicant by stating that the matter was put forth before the Review Screening Committee of MACP. The Committee did not recommend the case of the Applicant as the Applicant has availed one regular promotion and two financial up- gradations under TBOP and BCR. The above recommendation of

Kalpeswar Behera the Committee has been accepted by the Competent Authority conveyed vide RO, Sambalpur letter No. ST/RO/171-3/2021 dated 29.04.2024. 2.8 That, it is humbly submitted that the action of the Respondents denying the benefits of 3rd financial up-gradation to the Applicant is in violation of the MACP Scheme of 2009 and orders passed by the different Benches of this Tribunal, which have been upheld up to the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court. That the Respondent No.3 has refused to extend the benefit of Judgment of various Benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal to grant 3rd financial up-gradation to the applicant under MACP without applying its considered mind to the rules and judicial decisions correctly. 2.9 That the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 as per Annexure-A/3 is not sustainable in law in view of the law well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court that Financial up-gradation under the MACP Scheme is part of the pay structure and hence is liable to be set aside. That the applicant had joined in the post of Postal Clerk (renamed as Postal Assistant) with effect from 08.04.1975. Also the Respondents allowed TBOP from

Kalpeswar Behera

01.04.1990 after completion of 16 years of service in the Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant cadre. Hence, treating the change of post from Postman to Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant after passing Departmental Examination by the applicant is not a promotion for calculation of 3rd Financial up-gradation under MACP which is illegal and the rejection order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 2.10 That it is bad and illegal on the part of the Respondents to refuse the 3rd financial up-gradation to the applicant as per MACP Scheme as well as the judgment passed by the various Benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal.

3. The respondents have filed their counter stating as follows: 3.1 That Sri Gopinath Mallick, the Applicant was appointed as Postman vide memo No. B1-14 dated 09.05.1970. Thereafter as per Department's prevailing rules, the applicant appeared in Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of Postal Clerk now is named as Postal Assistant and promoted to the post of Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant and joined as Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant at Dhenkanal Head Post Office w.e.f 08.04.1975. Sri Gopinath Mallick got TBOP on 01.04.1990 after completion of 16

Kalpeswar Behera years of service as Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant. Similarly he was allowed next higher scale of pay after completion of 26 years of service in the same cadre, under BCR scheme w.e.f 01.07.2001. As per MACP Rule in force one official will get 3(three) financial upgradation during his entire service career. Sri Mallick, the applicant entered into the department in the Postman cadre on 09.05.1970, promoted to the Postal Clerk/Postal Assistant cadre on 08.04.1975 (1st promotion), then granted financial upgradation under TBOP on 01.04.1990 (2nd promotion) and granted financial upgradation under BCR on 01.07.2001 (3rd promotion). Thus further upgradationi.e 3rd MACP after completion of 30 years of service in Postal Assistant cadre is not admissible. Citing Judgment passed by The Hon'ble CAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in case of Sri Amit Mathur(supra) on 05.05.2022 (Annexure-A/1 to the O.A) for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP after completion of 30 years of service, the applicant submitted representation to Superintendent of Posts, Keonjhar Division(Respondent No. 3) for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP on 20.10.2022 (Annexure-A/2 to the O.A). The Respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the Applicant on

Kalpeswar Behera

29.04.2024 (Annexure-A/3 to the O.A) in accordance to RO letter No. ST/RO/171-3/2021 dated 29.04.2024. 2.2 That, it is humbly submitted that the Applicant had already availed 3(three) financial upgradation during his entire service, thus the order passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure-A/3 to the O.A) in rejecting the representation of the applicant dated 20.10.2022 for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP, is a legitimate one. 2.3 That, it is humbly submitted that the date of appointment of Applicant to Postman cadre is 09.05.1970 and not 09.05.2070 as averred by the Applicant. 2.4 That, it is humbly submitted that the applicant had appeared in Limited Departmental exam for promotion of lower grade staff to clerical cadre, and not through open Departmental Competitive Examination as claimed by Applicant. So, his promotion is considered as regular promotion only. That, it is humbly submitted that as per MACP order one official can be allowed only 3 (three) promotion/upgradation during entire service career. The applicant entered into the Department in the Postman cadre on 09.05.1970, promoted to the Postal

Kalpeswar Behera

Clerk/Postal Assistant cadre on 08.04.1975 (1st promotion), then granted financial upgradation under TBOP on 01.04.1990 ( 2nd) promotion) and granted financial upgradation under BCR on 01.07.2001 ( 3rd promotion). Thus further upgradation i.e 3rd MACP after completion of 30 years of service in Postal Assistant cadre is not admissible. Thus question of depriving the Applicant from getting legitimate claim doesn't arise. 2.5 That, in reply to the averments made by the applicant in Para-4.8 of the OA, it is humbly submitted that Applicant was promoted to Postal Assistant cadre on 08.04.1975 ( 1st) promotion), then granted financial upgradation under TBOP on 01.04.1990 ( 2nd promotion) and granted financial upgradation under BCR on 01.07.2001 (3rd promotion). Thus further upgradation i.e 3rd MACP after completion of 30 years of service in Postal Assistant cadre is not admissible. Thus O.A 114/2019 before the Hon'ble CAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur mentioned by Applicant is not applicable to the present case as the said order is made applicable in respect to that particular case only. 2.6 That, it is humbly submitted that directions of the Hon'ble CAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur mentioned by Applicant is not

Kalpeswar Behera applicable to the present case as the said order is made applicable in respect to that particular case only. On addition to OM dated 19.05.2009, Annexure 1 issued by Govt. of India, DOPT, it is clear that promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per recruitment rule shall be counted for the purpose of MACPs. It is submitted that on the date of implementation of MACP scheme i.e 01.09.2008, since the applicant had already earned three promotions/financial upgradations carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy, therefore he was not entitled for the benefit of MACP scheme. 2.7 That, it is humbly submitted that the said judgments/orders are applicable to the applicants of the said cases only and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Chennai Bench in Ο.Α/310/01439/2019 (Annexure-R/1) the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of different SLPs, and the O.A was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit to the applicant in case a decision is taken in favour of the applicant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLPs. Also the Department memo

Kalpeswar Behera

No. 4-7/MACPS/2019-PC dated 29.09.2021 mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Chennai Bench at Para 7, clearly states promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per recruitment rule shall be counted for the purpose of MACPs. Therefore no entitlement for the benefit of MACP scheme. 2.8 That, it is humbly submitted that as per order of Hon'ble CAT, Chennai Bench in Ο.Α/310/01439/2019 the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of different SLPs and hence the orders passed by the different Benches of this Tribunal have not been upheld up to the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2.9 That, it is humbly submitted that the matter was put forth before the Reviewing Screening Committee of MACP (Annexure R/2) and the committee did not recommend the case of the Applicant as the applicant has availed one regular promotion and two financial upgradation under TBOP and BCR. Hence the above said recommendation of the Committee has been accepted by the Competent Authority conveyed vide RO, Sambalpur Letter No. ST/RO/171-3/2021 dated 29.04.2024(Annexure R/3).

Kalpeswar Behera

2.10 That, it is humbly submitted that the contention of the applicant is not at all correct as the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way different SLPs till date and hence the order of Respondent 3 dated 29.04.2024 is lawful. 2.11 That, it is humbly submitted that as per OM No. 35034/3/2008-Est dated 19.05.2009 Annexure 1 Annexure R/4), issued by Govt. of India, DOPT, it is clear that promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per recruitment rule shall be counted for the purpose of MACPs. It is submitted that on the date of implementation of MACP scheme i.e 01.09.2008, since the applicant had already earned three promotions/ financial upgradations carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy, therefore he was not entitled for the benefit of MACP scheme.Hence the rejection order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 is legal and liable to be upheld. 2.12 That, it is humbly submitted that the said judgments/orders passed by different Benches of this Tribunal are applicable to the applicants of the said cases only and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence

Kalpeswar Behera the order passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure A/3 to the O.A)is lawful and there is no question of any illegal order by Respondent No 3.

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder and the respondents have filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by them in the OA and counter respectively.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. In an identical case before CAT, Jaipur Bench, in OA No. 114/2019, the applicant therein was also initially appointed as Postman w.e.f. 22.04.1976 and then he appeared in departmental examination for promotion of lower grade staff to the clerical cadre and he was declared successful in the said examination and after undergoing training he joined as Postal Assistant. His claim for 3rd MACP was rejected for which he had filed the said OA. CAT Jaipur Bench vide order dated 05.05.2022 allowed the prayer of the applicant therein. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, is that he was initially appointed as Postman w.e.f. 22.04.1976. In pursuance to the appointment order dated 31.03.1976, the applicant joined the services on 22.04.1976. After appointment as Postman, he appeared in departmental examination for promotion of lower grade staff to the clerical cadre and he was declared

Kalpeswar Behera

successful in the said examination. This examination was for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant. After qualifying the departmental examination, he has undergone training and vide order dated 18.03.1981, he was transferred for practical training and on completion of the said training, he joined on the post of Postal Assistant. It is the contention of the applicant that the appointment / promotion of the applicant as Postal Assistant was not a regular promotion. It was through open departmental competitive examination. Vide order dated 17.10.1996, after completion of 16 years of service as Postal Assistant, he was given time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800 EB 50-2300. He was given the said benefit w.e.f. 21.03.1997, which was time bound promotion on completion of 16 years of service. On 13.09.2007, after completion of 26 years of service in the cadre of Postal Assistant, he was allowed next higher grade of pay of Rs. 5000-150- 8000, which was provided under BCR. The Government of India has introduced MACP Scheme in the month of May, 2009 and under this Scheme, an employee is entitled for financial upgradation after completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. The said Scheme was made effective from 01.09.2008 to the employees who have not been allowed three promotions or financial upgradations. As the applicant was initially appointed in the year 1976 and had appeared in the departmental competitive examination, he was appointed as Postal Assistant. It is the claim of the applicant that after introduction of MACP Scheme, he is also entitled for the benefit of the said Scheme, which has been ordered to be given in similar cases by several Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal including several Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court. The applicant has also submitted several representations dated 04.10.2012, 22.08.2012 and 13.10.2017 to the respondents for grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. The applicant has also made an application for voluntary retirement and the same has been given w.e.f. 26.10.2017. On 10.01.2018, the respondents have issued Pension Payment Order to the applicant. At the time of voluntary retirement, he was drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. Thereafter, the applicant continuously represented the respondents to allow him the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of service since his appointment as Postal Assistant. Since no reply was given by the respondents, he made an application under RTI Act seeking information that what action has been taken over his representation. Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure A/1), he was informed that he is not entitled for financial ungradation under MACP scheme as he has already been given three upgradations. The respondents have treated the appointment / promotion given to the applicant as Postal Assistant as first upgradation / promotion under MACP Scheme. The controversy as to whether the selection to the post of Postal Assistant was promotion / upgradation under MACP Scheme has already been settled upto the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is settled that the selection for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant is not an upgradation/ promotion under MACP Scheme. As such, the applicant has been

Kalpeswar Behera given only two financial upgradation. First in the year 1997 after completion of 16 years of service and second after completion of 26 years of service from appointment / promotion to the post of Postal Assistant. These benefits will be counted from 17.03.1981 when applicant joined as Postal Assistant. Therefore, the applicant has completed 30 years of service since 1981. He retired from service on 26.10.2017 as he sought voluntary retirement. The applicant was, therefore, entitled for 3rd financial upgradationw.e.f. 17.03.2011. The action of the respondents denying the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation to the applicant is in violation to the MACP Scheme of 2009 and orders passed by the different Benches of this Tribunal, which have been upheld upto the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, being aggrieved by action of the respondents, applicant has filed the present Original Application for redressal of his grievances. XXXXXXX

8. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. We are of the opinion that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra as we have come across several judgments passed by several Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court on a particular issue. The very first judgment which we have come across is of Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal passed in the case of BhanwarLalRegar (supra), wherein this Tribunal at paras 19 & 20 has held as under: - “19. In a similar manner, while being Postmen, the three applicants in these three OAs faced the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, in short) and qualified to become Postal Assistants. Their joining as Postal Assistants was not in the nature of promotion in their earlier existing service or cadre, but was a career advancement through a process of selection. Therefore, for the purpose of grant of TBOP/BCR financial upgradations earlier, and MACP financial upgradation now, the only dates which are relevant to be taken into account for the purpose of counting the periods of their stagnation is the period spent by the applicants as Postal Assistants. In that sense, the clarification issued by the Pay Commission Cell of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications & IT on 25.04.2011 through file No. 4-7/MACPS/2009/- PCC, as cited in para 8 above, is correct. The only problem with that clarification is that it stopped at the point of clarifying that when the GDS first joined in a Group-D post, and was later declared as successful in the Postman examination, the regular service for the purpose of MACP would be deemed to commence from the date of his joining as a Postman in the main cadre on direct recruit basis. But it is obvious that the corollary would follow, and when the Postman appears at the LDCE, and gets selected to a new Cadre as a Postal Assistant, then it is start of a new innings for him, and for the purpose of counting his stagnation, if any, the date of his

Kalpeswar Behera joining as Postal Assistant alone would be relevant, and his previous career advancements cannot be called to be promotions within the definition of the word ‘promotion’, as is required for the grant of TBOP/BCR benefit consideration, and for consideration for eligibility for financial upgradation on account of stagnation under the MACP Scheme. 20. It is, therefore, clear that Para-2 of the impugned order in all these three OAs at Annexure A-1 dated 10.08.2011, passed by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Churu Division, Churu was incorrect, and the eligibility of these three applicants for the grant of TBOP/BCR benefits earlier, and MACP benefit thereafter, has to be counted only from the date they were substantively appointed as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the impugned Annexure A-1 dated 10.08.2011 in all the three OAs are set aside, and the grant of MACP benefit correctly granted to the three applicants earlier through the order dated 31.03.2010 is upheld. The applicants shall be accordingly entitled to all the arrears, with interest at the GPF rate of interest being payable on the arrears of the financial upgradation benefit admission to the applicants, correctly granted earlier on 31.03.2010.” It is also seen that against the said order of this Tribunal, the respondent- Union of India had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench by way of filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11336/2012 (Union of India &Ors. vs. BhanwarLalRegar) and connected Writ Petitions, but the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 10th August, 2015 had observed, while dismissing the same, which reads as follows:- “Having considered the argument advanced we do not find any merit with the same. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on asking again and again failed to point out any provision for promotion to the post of Postman / Sorting Assistant. On the other hand, from perusal of the orders of appointment to the post of Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant, it is apparent that the respondent original applicants faced an examination, may that be a limited competitive examination, i.e. nothing but direct recruitment. Their joining as Postal Assistants was not at all in the nature of promotion, hence their services for the grant of benefits under modified assured career progression has to be counted only from the date they were appointed as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants. The services rendered by them on earlier post prior to their appointment as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants are absolutely inconsequential for the purpose of grant of modified assured career progression. At the cost of repetition it shall be appropriate to mention that the petitioners failed to point out any provision for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant by way of promotion and to point out any order of appointment making appointment of the original applicants on the post concerned by way of promotion. The writ petitions, thus, are having no merit, hence dismissed. The orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in respective original applications stand affirmed.”

Kalpeswar Behera

We have also been informed that aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, the Union of India had moved to the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also upheld by orders passed by this Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan.

9. We have also noted that Chennai Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 14.03.2013 passed in the case of D. Sivakumar (supra) while dealing with the same issue had allowed the Original Application. Aggrieved by the decision of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, the respondent-Union of India had taken up the matter before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras by way of filing Writ Petition No. 30629 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014, (Union of India &Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar&Anr.), and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 04.02.2015 while dismissing the Writ Petition, has held as under: - “9. What the Department had done is to adjust the appointment of the first respondent as the Postal Assistant on 12.11.1977, as the first financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression-I. This is clearly erroneous in view of the fact that the appointment as Postal Assistant was not granted to the first respondent after mere completion of 10 years in the Cadre of Postman. From the Cadre of Postman, to which, the first respondent got appointed on 22.9.1973, he participated in a selection to the post of Postal Assistant and got appointed. Therefore, to adjust the said appointment against Modified Assured Career Progression-II, is clearly erroneous. Once that error is removed, it will be clear that the first respondent would be entitled to three modified assured career progression for every ten years. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in directing the Department not to take into account the appointment granted to the post of Postal Assistant and to adjust it against Modified Assured Career Progression- I.

10. Moreover, it is to be pointed out that even the second modified assured career progression was granted under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme only after 16 years and the third is said to have been granted after 26 years. If the first appointment is adjusted against Modified Assured Career Progression-I, this could not have actually happened. For doing so, the Department has counted the first appointment as 12.11.1977. Therefore, they cannot do so for the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme in a different manner. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.” Thereafter, against the said order/judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the respondent-Union of India has filed Petition for Special Leave (C) No. 4848/2016 (Union of India &Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.08.2016, while dismissing the same, has held as under: -

Kalpeswar Behera

“We see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the question of law is kept open.”

10. We have also come across the orders passed by our Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal. The Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal, while dealing with the very same issue in the case of C.F. Tagadinamani (supra) has held as under: - “4. It is evident from the orders passed by different Benches of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court on this particular issue as highlighted in the preceding para that the appointment of the applicant to the post of Postal Assistant on 01.09.1987 based on the LGO’s examination cannot be considered as promotion. Following his appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre, the applicant got one financial upgradation under TBOP on completion of 16 years. He completed 20 years of service in Postal Assistant cadre in 2007. Accordingly, his claim for 2nd financial upgradationw.e.f. 1.9.2008 appears to us as justified. Therefore, we hold that the applicant is entitled to get 2nd financial upgradationw.e.f. 1.9.2008 when he had completed 20 years of service in the Postal Assistant cadre. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pass necessary orders granting the applicant 2nd financial upgradation under MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008 as claimed by him in place of 3rd financial upgradation granted from Oct., 2011. This shall be done within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the consequential benefits should also be granted within the said period.

5. The OA is accordingly allowed in terms of aforesaid direction. No order as to costs.” The Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 22nd November, 2017 passed in the case of G.B. Kulkarni (supra) has dealt with the same issue and held that the appointment of the applicants to the post of Postal Assistant based on the LGO’s examination cannot be considered as promotion.

11. The Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal while examining the identical issue, vide order dated 04th April 2019 passed in the case of V.T. Easow (supra) had held that the selection to the post of Postal Assistant / Postman is by way of an exam and which is a direct recruitment and the same shall not be counted as promotion for the purpose of MACP. Therefore, all the applicants are entitled for the financial upgradation as per the MACP scheme on completion of respective period of service. The impugned orders in all the OAs to extent it denies the benefit of financial upgradation under MACP scheme to the applicants treating the appointment to the post of Postal Assistant / Postman as one promotion were quashed and set aside.

Kalpeswar Behera

12. We have also come across the judgment of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal which while dealing with the identical / similar issue, vide order dated 17.09.2019 passed in the case of Natvarbhai S. Makwana (supra) has quashed all impugned orders whereby either TBOP/BCR/MACP granted earlier to the applicants has been cancelled and adjusted as set off or they were declined their TBOP/BCR/MACP due treating the post of Postal Assistant as promotion from the post of Postman. The respondents were directed to place the claim of the applicants for examination afresh before the Review Screening Committee treating the date of entry into the cadre/grade of the post of Postal Assistant as the starting point and to release the financial upgradations of 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACP, as the case may be, to which they are entitled, keeping in mind that promotion of the applicants as Postal Assistant was not a ‘promotion’.

13. From the aforesaid orders/judgments passed by different Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court on this particular issue, it is quite clear that appointment of the applicant as Postal Assistant on 17.03.1981 based on departmental competitive examination cannot be considered as promotion. Since the applicant is similarly situated employee to that of the cases as discussed above, he is entitled for grant of benefit of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service in the cadre of Postal Assistant.

14. We are not in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the said orders/judgments, as discussed above, is applicable to the applicants of the said cases only. But we are of the considered view that since the applicant herein is similarly situated person, he is also entitled to get the same benefits as have been given to the applicants therein. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of R. SanthakumariVelusamy (supra), as relied upon by the respondents, is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. Accordingly, respondents are directed to grant financial benefits of 3rd MACP to the applicant in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- from the date of completion of 30 years of service in the cadre of Postal Assistant, with all consequential benefits. The applicant shall also be entitled to all arrears accordingly, with interest at the GPF rate being payable on the arrears of the financial upgradation benefits admissible to the applicant. Since the applicant has already voluntarily retired from service, he is entitled for revision of pension and other pensionary benefits accordingly. This exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

16. With these observations and directions, the Original Application is allowed. No order as to costs.

Kalpeswar Behera

8. The respondents themselves in the counter at para 6.10 has stated that the decision relied by ld. Counsel for the applicant in the OA is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of different SLPs.

9. Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.02.2026 disposed of batch of petitions challenging the issue i.e. Civil Appeal No. 4432/2019 (Union of India vrs E Sreeramulu), SLP (C) No. 11997 of 2019 (Dev Karan Mahala and ors vrs Union of India), SLP (C) No. 26561 of 2019 (KharatiLal and Ors vrs Union of India and Ors), SLP (C) No. 24722 of 2019 (Union of India vrs T. Satyanarayana), SLP (c) No. 23646/2019 ( Union of India vrs K Rangantha Pillai), WP (C) No. 611 of 2020 (Hardev Ram Dhaka and ors vrs Union of India), SLP (C) No. 1123/2022 (Union of India vrs K Devender), SLP (C) No. 14072 of 2022 (Union of India vrs Sushil Kumar Gupta (Dead).

10. Since the matter has attained finality and the applicant in this OA being similarly placed, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant 3rd MACP to the applicant w.e.f. the date he is due and grant him all

Kalpeswar Behera consequential benefits. However we are not inclined to pass any orders as regards to interest.

11. The OA stands allowed. Pending MA’s, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera