Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P Rajagopalan vs Department Of Posts on 20 June, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00188/2024
Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
P. Rajagopalan, Aged 61 years, S/o. Velukutty Menon, Retired Postman,
Alathur Sub Division, Palakkad Division, Residing Parakkal Kuruppath
House, Palampalakode, Palakkad-678544.
- Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. Martin G Thottan]
Versus
1. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-695001.
2. Director of Postal Services, Calicut Region, Nadakkavu, Calicut.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Palakkad Division, Palakkad-678001.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. V.N.Mohanadasan, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 22.05.2025, the Tribunal on
20.06.2025 delivered the following order:
DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30'
O.A.No.188/2024 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Postman of Alathur Sub Division, Palakkad Division. He had commenced service in the Postal Department as GDS. Later, he was regularly appointed as Postman on 13.03.2003. Admittedly, he was granted 1st MACP on 30.03.2013. He retired from service on 31.05.2023 after putting in more than 20 years of regular service as Postman. The grievance of the applicant is that, though he had completed 10 years of service without promotion, after getting the 1st MACP, he has not been granted the 2 nd MACP. Thus Annexure-A1 representation was given for granting him 2 nd MACP. Then Annexure-A4 proceedings was issued, which indicates that his financial upgradation under MACP was considered by the Departmental Screening Committee held on 14.07.2023, but was not approved by the competent authority, with the following remarks:
"Not recommended as the APAR grading for the year 2017-2018 is 5.75 (below benchmark). The below bench mark has been communicated to the official and no representation against the below benchmark was received from him."
DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 3
2. On that basis, he was denied the 2nd MACP. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached the Tribunal for annulling Annexure-A4 to the extent it relates to the applicant, for a declaration that he is eligible for 2nd financial upgradation under MACP with effect from 31.03.2023 or from a deferred date prior to his retirement and to direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits.
3. Regarding Annexure-A4, it is submitted that the committee in considering the APAR rating for the year 2017-2018 and not recommending for financial upgradation is highly erroneous, arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. Secondly, it is pointed out that APAR grading of the applicant for the last five consecutive years commencing from 2018 is 'very good'. He retired on superannuation on 31.05.2023 with the APAR grading of 'very good' for the five years ending on 31.03.2023. Since he has completed 20 years of service, is eligible and entitled for financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. So, according to him, having satisfied the twin requirements of completion of 20 years of service and five consecutive years of APAR grading as 'very good' prior to his retirement, is entitled to get the 2 nd MACP and denial of the same DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 4 is illegal.
4. On behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent filed reply denying the contentions in the O.A. According to him, the applicant had started service as Postman on 13.03.2003, before which he was a Gramin Dak Sevak. On completion of 10 years he was granted 1 st MACP and he became eligible for consideration for the grant of 2 nd MACP with effect from 12.03.2023. But, according to the respondents, as per Postal Directorate order No.7-8/2016-PCC(Pt) dated 02.07.2018, when the MACP falls due on or after 25.07.2016, the revised APAR benchmark of 'very good' has to be followed. In other words, overall grading of APARs reckonable for grant of MACP should be atleast 'very good'. The case of the applicant was considered for the previous five years from the due date of MACP and the following were the grading obtained by him:
2017-2018 5.75&6 2018-2019 6 2019-2020 7 2020-2021 7.5 2021-2022 7&7 5. According to them, the screening committee for DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 5
recommending MACP had met during January 2023 and had considered the case of the applicant but did not recommend due to below benchmark grading of APAR for 2017-2018 with 5.75 marks. The screening committee had again met on 14.07.2023 and considered the case of Postman at Palakkad Postal Division due for next MACP. The case of the applicant was considered by the committee, but had not recommended citing remarks, quoted supra.
6. The screening committee met on 14.07.2023 has not taken into consideration the APAR for the year 2022-2023 as the same would be treated as final only by 30.09.2023. Therefore, five APAR periods prior to that was considered and the applicant did not fulfill the criterion of 'very good' for the year 2017-2018. So, according to the respondents, the applicant is not entitled to get the 2nd MACP.
7. We heard Sri.Martin G. Thottan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V.N.Mohanadasan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
8. It is admitted that the applicant had commenced service as a regular Postman on 13.03.2003 and was granted 1 st MACP on DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 6 30.03.2013, on completion of 10 years service. After that he did not earn any promotion. Therefore, as per the Annexure-R1 scheme for MACPs, he is entitled to be considered for 2nd MACP on 30.03.2023. He retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2023. In other words, he had retired from service after completion of more than 10 years, without promotion, from the date of grant of 1st MACP on 30.03.2013.
9. The twin conditions for grant of 2nd MACP is completion of 10 years without any promotion from the date of grant of the 1 st MACP, and secondly, he should have earned confidential report as 'very good' for five consecutive years prior to reckoning for the benefit. Here the question is whether he has satisfied both the conditions.
10. It is not disputed that the applicant has completed 10 years of service, without promotion, from the date of grant of the 1 st MACP. Secondly, whether he had secured the benchmark confidential report in his favour during the five years immediately prior to the reckoning period. Annexure-R1 indicates that for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP scheme the prescribed benchmark shall be 'very good' for all levels. This shall be effective for upgradation under MACPs falling DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 7 due on or after 25.07.2016 and the revised benchmark shall be applicable to the APARs for the years 2016-2017 and subsequent years. Prior to 25.07.2016 benchmark grading for MACP for a cadre like Postman was only 'good'. But after 25.07.2016 it has been revised and made 'very good'.
11. As mentioned earlier, on 30.03.2023 applicant had completed 10 years of service after getting the 1 st MACP. He has been denied the 2nd MACP on the ground that he did not acquire APAR benchmark of 'very good' during 2017-2018. But we cannot comprehend as to how the grading of 2017-2018 could be reckoned for the purpose of assessing the suitability for 2nd MACP on 30.03.2023. Such an argument is fallacious and liable to be rejected. The five years period of reckoning is from 2018-2019 onwards. It is evident from the reply that for 2018-2019 his grading was '6', that is 'very good'. During subsequent years it was far better; for 2019-2020 it was '7', for 2020-2021 it was 7.5 and for 2021-2022 it was 7 &7. Firstly, the grading for 2017-2018 is beyond five years from the period of reckoning. Secondly, at the time of considering his case the respondents should have taken into DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 8 consideration the APAR grading for the year 2022-2023 as well. That was not done.
12. The definite case of the applicant is that for the five consecutive years his APAR grading had been 'very good'. This has not been denied in the reply statement.
13. Moreover, it is stated that when the screening committee had met during January 2023, his case was not considered as he had only 5.75 marks during 2017-2018. We have already found that, that was illegal. 2017-2018 was beyond five years immediately prior to the year of reckoning. Secondly, the grading for 2022-2023, that is from 01.04.2022 till 31.03.2023, was not taken into consideration. The respondents have no case that he did not have the benchmark grading during 2022-2023.
14. It is submitted that the screening committee had again met on 14.07.2023, after the retirement of the applicant, but did not consider the APAR for the year 2022-2023 as the same would be finalised only on 30.05.2023. We fail to appreciate the reasoning stated by the respondents. The reply statement was filed on 03.06.2024. We do not DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 9 understand as to why the subsequent entries, which might have been finalised after 30.09.2023 was not taken into consideration. In all probability, in terms of Annexure-R1 scheme the Departmental Screening Committee must have met again after 30.09.2023, during January 2024. Still, it is regrettable that the case of the applicant, a retired employee, was not considered.
15. The applicant has completed 20 years of service in the same cadre without any promotion. Still he was not granted 2 nd MACP. The positive assertion that he had secured grading of 'very good' consecutively, during the past five years, has not been denied. On their own showing, from 2018-2019 onwards he has secured benchmark grading. For the period 2022-2023 also, he had benchmark grading, is not in dispute. In the circumstances, there is no reason why the applicant was not granted 2nd MACP with effect from 30.03.2023.
In the result, we quash Annexure-A4 to the extent of denying the benefit to the applicant and direct the respondents to issue orders granting him 2nd MACP and releasing him the entire consequential benefits within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30' O.A.No.188/2024 10 goes without saying that all the benefits including arrears of pay fixation, pension etc. shall be granted to the applicant within the time frame. We make no order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 20th June, 2025)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30'
O.A.No.188/2024 11
List of Annexures
Annexure-A1: A true copy of the representation dated 24.03.2023
submitted by the applicant
Annexure-A2: True English translation of Annexure Al.
Annexure-A3: A true copy of the representation dated 10.10.2023
submitted by the applicant along with the English translation Annexure-A4: True copy of the Letter bearing No.B2/MACP/Dlgs dated 18.12.2023 issued by the third respondent ANNEXURE-R1: A True copy of Directorate OM No.35034/3/2015/Estt.
(D) dated 22.10.2019 ANNEXURE-R2: A True copy of the APAR of the applicant written by the Competent Authority for the year 2017-2018 ANNEXURE-R3: A True copy of the minutes of the Screening Committee held on 14.07.2023 ************ DEEPA S 2025.06.23 10:24:43+05'30'