Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Jairam Luniwal vs D/O Post on 5 May, 2022
1
OA No. 114/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 114/2019
Order reserved on 20.04.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 05.05.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Jairam Luniwal S/o Late Shri Ramgopal aged about 60
years, R/o 37, H.B. Extension, Near Power House,
Madar, Ajmer-305024 (Raj.), earlier working as Postal
Assistant under the Sr. Supt. Ajmer Postal Division,
Ajmer.
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Tar
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle,
Jaipur-302001.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ajmer
Postal Division, Department of Post, Ajmer-
305007 (Raj.).
.... Respondents
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondents.
2
OA No. 114/2019
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore prayed that the present original application made by the applicant may kindly be allowed and the reasoning given by the respondents for denying the applicant benefit under MACP scheme may kindly be deprecated. The respondents may be directed to give the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation to the applicant in GP 4600 w.e.f. the date he has completed 30 years of services in the cadre of Postal Assistant. They may further be directed to give interest along with arrears. They may be directed to revise the pension and other pension related benefits. The respondents may further be directed to give all other consequential benefits for which the applicant was entitled for.
Any other relief or direction which this learned Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of applicant."
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 3 OA No. 114/2019 and he was declared 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 4 OA No. 114/2019 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 5 OA No. 114/2019 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 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 6 OA No. 114/2019 upgradation w.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. In support of his contentions, the applicant has relied upon the following judgments / orders: -
"(i) C.A.T., Jodhpur Bench's order dated 22.05.2012 passed in the case of Bhanwar Lal Regar vs. Union of India & Ors., (OA No. 382/2010), and other connected OAs.
(ii) C.A.T., Bangalore Bench's order dated 14.03.2013 passed in the case of D. Sivakumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 1088/2011)
(iii) C.A.T., Bangalore Bench's order dated 17.01.2018 passed in the case of C.F. Tagadinamani vs. Union of India & Ors.
(OA No. 946/2016)
(iv) C.A.T., Ernakulam Bench's order dated 04th April, 2019 passed in the case of V.T. Easow vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 950/2017) and other connected OAs.
(v) C.A.T., Bangalore Bench's order dated 22nd November, 2017 passed in the case of G.B. Kulkarni vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 852/2016) and other connected OAs.
7OA No. 114/2019
(vi) C.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench's order dated 17.09.2019 passed in the case of Natvarbhai S. Makwana vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 93/2019) and other connected OAs."
3. After issue of notices, respondents have filed their reply stating that the applicant was initially appointed as Postman on 22.04.1976 in the respondent-department. He was promoted to Postal Assistant cadre on 17.03.1981 and was placed in TBOP w.e.f. 21.03.1997 and on completion of 26 years of service, he was placed for 3rd financial up- gradation under BCR Scheme on 01.07.2007, hence, he was already allowed three financial upgradations in his entire duration of his service. After introduction of MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 vide D.G. Posts, New Delhi letter dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure R/1), three financial upgradation, counted from direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service were ordered to be allowed to each employee and also ordered that the financial upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuous service in the same grade pay. As the applicant has already availed three financial upgradation in his service career, hence, he is not eligible for grant of 3rd financial upgradation 8 OA No. 114/2019 under MACP Scheme. As per OM dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure R/2) 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 as per the recruitment rules, therefore, he was not entitled for the benefit of MACP Scheme. Respondents further state that the said orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal including C.A.T., Jodhpur and Chennai Benches are not applicable to the present case as the said orders are made applicable in respect of those particular cases only. As far as the decisions of several Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court are concerned, the same are applicable only to those respective cases. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) SLJ 353 wherein it has been held that once a person has been granted a financial 9 OA No. 114/2019 upgradation though after passing a competitive examination then it will be treated as promotion. Thus, it is very clear that as the applicant has already earned three promotions/financial upgradations, in his service career, he is not entitled for the financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. Therefore, the respondents prayed that the O.A. deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
4. Applicant has also filed a rejoinder denying the contentions of the respondents. He further stated that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in para 9 of the judgment has clearly held that appointment as Postal Assistant was not given after mere completion of 10 years in the cadre of Postman. From the cadre of Postman, the applicant has participated in a selection to the post of Postal Assistant and then has got appointment on the said post. He has denied the contentions of the respondents that the applicant has already availed three financial upgradations in his service career. He further states that the order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP filed by the respondent-department has already been rejected. Thus, it is very clear that the appointment in 10 OA No. 114/2019 the cadre of Postal Assistant is made through the process of selection and such selection cannot be a promotion as it was not done in the course of only progression through seniority. Any advancement in career which is based on a process of selection especially undertaken for that purpose cannot be called a promotion. A promotion has to be in higher category in the same cadre, or service, or through a prescribed avenue of promotion, but without an element of a process of selection, through test or examination etc. The applicant further stated that the controversy involved in the present case is no more res-integra, which is well settled by several Benches of this Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the applicant is entitled to get the benefits of MACP as he is a similarly situated person. The present Original Application is squarely covered by the judgments / orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, as stated above, as the same question has been upheld upto the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant further stated that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General, Rice Research Institute, Cuttack and Anr. vs. Khetram Mohan Das, 'promotion' means appointment of a 11 OA No. 114/2019 person of any category or grade or a service or a class of service to a higher category or grade of such service or class. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of R. Santhakumari Velusamy (supra), as relied upon by the respondents, is concerned, the applicant stated that the same has no applicability in the facts of the present case as the same was primarily dealing with the issue of upgradation vis-à-vis the promotion and it was held that there is a clear distinction between upgradation and promotion. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where there is advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post, it is upgradation but not a promotion. Therefore, the applicant stated that the O.A. deserves to be allowed as prayed for.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined the pleadings brought on record including the judgments/orders cited by the parties.
6. The applicant and respondents have reiterated their stand as taken earlier.
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, factual matrix of the case is that the 12 OA No. 114/2019 applicant was initially appointed as Postman on 22.04.1976 in pursuance to appointment order dated 31.03.1976. Thereafter, he has appeared in Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion of lower grade staff to the clerical cadre i.e. from the post of Postman to the post of Postal Assistant. Applicant has stated that above appointment / promotion was not a regular promotion but it was through open departmental competitive examination. On 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 vide order dated 17.10.1996. Thereafter on 13.09.2007, after completion of 26 years of satisfactory service in the cadre of Postal Assistant, he was allowed next higher grade of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 as provided under BCR. As per MACP Scheme, which was made effective from 01.09.2008, an employee is entitled for financial upgradation after completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. Since the applicant was initially appointed in the year 1976 and after pursuing the departmental competitive examination, he was appointed as Postal Assistant, therefore, he was entitled for the benefits under MACP Scheme on completion of 30 years of service. Since the applicant 13 OA No. 114/2019 was not granted any financial benefits under the MACP Scheme on completion of 30 years of service, he made representations dated 04.10.2012, 22.08.2012 and 13.10.2017 for grant of said financial upgradation. The applicant had also submitted an application for voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the respondents w.e.f. 26.10.2017 vide order dated 13.09.2017. The respondents have also issued PPO to the applicant on 10.01.2018 and at the time of retirement, he was drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. Though the applicant has continuously represented the respondents to allow him the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme with effect from the date he has completed 30 years of service since his appointment as Postal Assistant but the respondents vide letter dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure A/1) under RTI had informed that he is not entitled for the said financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme as he has already been given three financial benefits.
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 14 OA No. 114/2019 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 Bhanwar Lal Regar (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 joining as Postal Assistant alone would 15 OA No. 114/2019 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. Bhanwar Lal Regar) 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:-
16OA No. 114/2019
"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."
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. 17 OA No. 114/2019
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. 18 OA No. 114/2019
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: -
"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 19 OA No. 114/2019 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 upgradation w.e.f. 1.9.2008 appears to us as justified. Therefore, we hold that the applicant is entitled to get 2nd financial upgradation w.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 20 OA No. 114/2019 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.
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 21 OA No. 114/2019 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. 22 OA No. 114/2019
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. Santhakumari Velusamy (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 23 OA No. 114/2019 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.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/