Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Guru Din Yadav vs M/O Communications on 11 July, 2025
1
Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020
Court No. V
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 26/2020
This the 11th day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Guru Din Yadav
Dy. Postmaster (PLI)
Group - "B" & "C"
Age about 59 years,
S/o Late Sh Ram Din Yadav,
R/ o Qtr-875, Sector-6, P & T Colony,
R.K Puram, New Delhi-110022
Applicants
(By Advocate (s) : Mr. Amit Anand)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Delhi Circle,
Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Director Postal Service
General Post Office,
New Delhi-110001
4. Assistant Director (Admin.)
GPO, New Delhi-110001
5. The Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices
New Delhi-110019
...Respondents
(By Advocate(s) : Mr. R K Jain)
2
Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020
Court No. V
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"8 A) Quash and set aside order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Assistant Director (Admin.) GPO, New Delhi-110001.
B) Direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of 2nd MACP with the grade pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f.
11.07.2009 and 3rd MACP with the grade of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 17.07.2019 in the cadre of Postal Assistant with all consequential benefits and with interest @ 12% p.a. C) Direct the Respondents to pay costs of this litigation D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be passed in the interest of justice in favour of the applicant and against the Respondents."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant states that the matter can be dealt with in accordance with the decision rendered by co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal, in the matters i.e. O.A. No. 3343/2018titled as Nirmal Kumar Vs. Union of India and others; O.A. No. 4038/2015 titled as Viswanath Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others and O.A. No. 627/2019 titled as Naresh Chand Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others.
3 Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020Court No. V
3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the grant of relief, stating that the decision rendered in identical matters is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. we observed that the present matter pertains to postal service, and the identical matter i.e. Nirmal Kumar (supra) referred by the applicant also pertains to the same department, wherein this Tribunal had passed the following order on 28.03.2023:-
"Aggrieved by an order dated 14.08.2018vide which his claim for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme has been denied, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"a. That by writ order or direction the impugned order dated 14-8- 2018 may be declared as improper, illegal and deserves to be quashed.
b. That by writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to confer grade pay Rs.4200/- on completion of 20 years of service in accordance with MACP Scheme and consequential benefits may be granted.
c. The respondent may kindly be directed to confer the grade pay Rs. 4200/- for MACP-11 on completion of 20 years of service in PA Cadre and pension may be fixed and amended PPO may be issued.
d. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits and arrears to be @ 18% interest per annum.
b. That any other direction or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest justice.
c. That the costs of this application may be awarded to the applicant."4 Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020
Court No. V
2. The reason for denying the claim of the applicant for financial upgradation is that he had got promotion as Postal Assistant on 01.05.1986 and accordingly that has to be off-set against his claim for financial upgradation. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant drawing support from the averments made in the O.A. is that the applicant's promotion to the post of Postal Assistant was by virtue of his selection through a competitive route, viz, the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and hence, this promotion is to be considered as fresh appointment.
3. Accordingly, the qualifying service for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is to be computed from the date of appointment as Postal Assistant which is 01.05.1986. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the limited issue which needs to be adjudicated upon is whether the appointment on the post via LDCE is to be considered promotion or fresh appointment and adjudication of this issue shall determine the claim of the applicant. He draws attention to an order dated 06.01.2023 passed in O.A. No. 4038/2015 wherein an identical issue has been thrashed out after relying upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. For the sake of clarity the said order is reproduced below:-
"The applicants by virtue of the present Original Application seek the benefit of third financial upgradation under the scheme of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP). The reliefs as sought by them in the present Original Application are reproduced below:-
"(A) The respondent may kindly be directed to grant MACP-III and confer the grade pay Rs.4600/- on completion of 30 years of service in Postal Assistant (PA) cadre in accordance with MACP Scheme with all consequential benefits.
(B) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits, arising out due to entry grade and recovered amount may be refunded with interest @ 18% pa.
(C) That any other direction or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the inters justice.
(D) That the costs of this application may be awarded to the applicant."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that it is not in dispute that the applicants have 5 Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020 Court No. V rendered 30 years of service which is the eligibility required for consideration of third financial upgradation under MACP. However, their claim has been denied by the respondents on a limited ground that the appointment of the applicants as Postal Assistant was by way of a promotion and since they had already availed the promotion they could not get the benefit of MACP, which essentially is a scheme to give financial upgradation in the absence of promotion.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants clarifies that the applicants got appointment as Postal Assistant by way of appearing in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), therefore, their appointment to the post of Postal Assistant is to be considered as a fresh direct recruitment instead of promotion. To draw support to his contention, he also places the judgment rendered by this Tribunal on 11.11.2022 in OA No. 112/2017. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court this Tribunal had held that the applicants were entitled for the benefit of financial upgradation under MACP as selection to a post through the route of LDCE is, for all intents and purposes, direct recruitment; hence, the claim and eligibility in terms of the number of years would be with reference to the date on which the appointment is made to the post through LDCE.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes and submits that the scheme of MACP unambiguously states that the financial upgradation is to be granted in lieu of promotion. In the instant matter, even though the applicants may have obtained the post of Postal Assistant through LDCE, it is essentially a promotion as LDCE is also a method of accelerated promotion through a competitive examination.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as also gone though the voluminous documents on record.
6. The issue involved is very limited, the same being whether appointment through LDCE is deemed to be a direct recruitment or appointment on promotion. The issue has been fully settled in the OA No. 112/2017 referred to in the preceding paragraph of this order. The said OA also relies upon an order of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 800/2018. Further it draws support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, we have no cause to take a divergent view.
7. In the light of the facts and the discussion narrated above, this Original Application is allowed 6 Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020 Court No. V and the applicants are held to be entitled for 3rd financial upgradation, on completion of 30 years of service, in accordance with the provisions contained in the instructions governing MACP. Accordingly, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to issue necessary orders in this regard and release the benefits forthwith, certainly not later than a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The arrears too shall be released, albeit without interest, during this period of 12 weeks. However, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the arrears shall be restricted to only a period of three years preceding the date of filing this Original Application.
8. The OA stands allowed against the background of these directions.
9. Any associated MA shall also stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs. "
4. We have gone through the said order and we are convinced that the issue thrashed out is strikingly similar to the one being agitated before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 11997/2019 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has sought detailed information with respect to the dates of appointment and various benefits drawn by the petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that it would be appropriate to adjourn the matter sine die and reviving it in case the situation so warrants after the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already taken a decision in the matter. Learned counsel further argues that the subject matter of the present O.A. also bears similarity to the issue being agitated in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 7504/2013 and the Hon'ble High Court in view of the pendency of the SLP has adjourned the matter sine die.
5. We have taken note of the contentions of the respondents' counsel. We have also given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to the pendency of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsequent decision of the Hon'ble High Court to sine die adjourn the SLP.
6. However, we are of the considered view that since identical matters have been decided by his Tribunal and the latest one being dated 06.01.2023 in O.A. No. 4038/2015 which has been verbatim quoted above, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present O.A. also against the said background, subject of course, to the outcome of the SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the aforementioned W.P.(C) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.7 Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020
Court No. V
7. In the light of what has been detailed and discussed above, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to determine the claim of the applicant for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme by considering his appointment to the post of Postal Assistant on promotion as a fresh appointment and counting his qualifying service for grant of MACP accordingly. However, such claim shall only be determined at this stage and extension of the benefit shall be done only after the outcome of the pending SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court, of course subject to the outcome and directions passed by the in case the Hon'ble Apex."
5. In view of the above, the present matter is disposed of in light of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Nirmal Kumar (supra) in O.A. No. 3343/2018 which has been verbatim highlighted also against the said background, subject to the outcome of the SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the aforementioned W.P.(C) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. In light of what has been detailed and discussed above, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to determine the claim of the applicant for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme by considering his appointment to the post of Postal Assistant on promotion as a fresh appointment and counting his qualifying service for grant of MACP accordingly. However, such claims shall only be determined at this stage and the extension of the benefit shall be done only after the outcome of the pending SLP 8 Item No. 34 O.A. No. 26/2020 Court No. V in the Hon'ble Apex Court, of course, subject to the outcome and directions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. The O.A. is allowed in the above terms. Pending M.As, if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/