Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Kabir Charan Malik vs D/O Post on 6 March, 2026
1 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00809 of 2011
Reserved on: 05.03.2026 Pronounced on :06.03.2026
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
Sri Kabir Charan Mallik, aged about 61 years, S/O-late Sri
Panu Mallik, Ex-Sub Post master, Borikina S.O, Jagatsinghpur
H.O, presently residing At/Po- Naindipur, Via- Gardapur, Dist-
Kendrapara.
..... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented through the Director General of
Posts, Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi, Pin-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odissa Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist.-Khurda, Pin-751001.
3. Director Postal Services, O/O- Chief Post Master General,
Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division,
Cuttack-753001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.P. Dhalsamant, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. J.K. Nayak, Counsel
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30'
2 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief :
"8.1 That the Order dated 12.07.2011 (A/2) be quashed.
8.2 That direction be issued to the respondents to grant 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme to the applicant w.e.f.
01.09.2008 with all consequential benefits. 8.3 And further be pleased to pas to any other order/orders to give complete relief to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he entered into service as Postman on 11.06.1970 as a Direct Recruit. On being qualified in the L.G.O. Examination, he joined as Postal Assistant on 04.07.1975. While working as such, he was given the benefits of Time Bound One Promotion on 04.07.1991 on completion of 16 years of service and the benefit of Biennial Cadre Review on 01.01.2002 on completion of 26 years of service. While working as BCR Sub-
Postmaster, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2009. Respondent No.1 vide its memo dated 18.09.2009 introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 3 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 (MACP) Scheme for Central Govt. employees on the basis of recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission. The said MACP Scheme came into operation w.e.f. 01.09.2008. According to this Scheme, an employee can be granted three financial upgradation on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, if no regular promotion is granted to him in the meantime. The grievance of the applicant is that although he had completed 34 years of service on the date of his retirement in the Postal Assistant cadre but he was not granted the 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Putting forth his grievance, the applicant preferred a representation on 09.11.2010 (Annexure-A/1) before Respondent No.1. By virtue of the order dated 15.04.2011 in O.A. No. 202/2011 filed by the applicant, Respondent No.1 considered the representation of the applicant and rejected the same vide order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure-A/2). On the above backdrop, the applicant has filed this O.A. with the prayers as aforesaid.
3. Respondents have filed their counter refuting the prayer made in the O.A. The main thrust of the Respondents is that the applicant was initially recruited as Postman on 11.06.1970 and he was promoted to the post of Postal Assistant on being declared successful in the departmental examination under promotion quota on Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 4 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 04.07.1975. Thereafter, he was given two financial upgradations under TBOP and BCR Schemes prevalent at that point of time on 04.07.1991 and 01.01.2002 after completion of 16 and 26 years of service respectively before his retirement from service on superannuation on 31.03.2009. So far as the grievance of the applicant that his juniors were allowed the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP, the Respondents by filing MACP order dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure-R/1) issued by the Department have emphasized that "financial upgradation under the MACPS shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay/grade pay under the MACPS". Respondents have further submitted that as per the MACP Scheme, in lieu of the regular promotions, three financial upgradations at the intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of service is to be given to an employee in case of any stagnation. In the instant case, the applicant entered into Central Govt. service as Postman on 11.06.1970 and, thereafter, got first promotion to Postal Assistant cadre on 04.07.1975 and two financial upgradation under TBOP and BCR Schemes w.e.f. 04.07.1991 and 01.01.2002 respectively. Since Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 5 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 the applicant has already got one regular promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant as per Statutory Recruitment Rule providing for promotion based on departmental competitive examination, not as a Direct Recruit, and thereafter two financial upgradations, there is no scope of giving another financial upgradation under 3rd MACP as claimed by the applicant.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the above O.A. was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2018 by this Tribunal the applicant filed R.A. No.03/2018, which was also dismissed by this Bench. Being aggrieved with the above orders of this Tribunal, the applicant moved before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by filing W.P.(C) No.21874 of 2018. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa remand back the case vide order dated 21.03.2024 by passing the following order. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below:
"6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner had filed O.A. No.809 of 2011 before the Tribunal claiming for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, which has been referred to by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 6 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 its judgment dated 14.03.2013 rendered in O.A. No. 1088 of 2011. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment. Though the Tribunal has recorded the said judgment, while concluding the argument, vide order dated 14.11.2017, the same has not been taken note of while passing the impugned order dated 21.02.2018 in O.A. No.809 of 2011. Thereby, the Tribunal has ignored the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Furthermore, against the said order, even though the petitioner filed Review Application No.3 of 2018 incorporating the aforesaid judgment, but the Tribunal did not appreciate the same and dismissed the said review application, vide order dated 09.05.2018 on the ground that no case of review was made out.
7. In view of such position, once the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment, it is incumbent upon the Tribunal either to accept the ratio decided therein or for some reason of other not to accept, but cannot ignore the same. As such, the order dated 21.02.2018 passed in O.A. No.809 of 2011 and the order dated 09.05.2018 passed in R.A. No.03 of 2018 by the Tribunal do not speak about the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, which had been referred to by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in its judgment dated 14.03.2013 passed in O.A. No. 1088 of 2011. Thereby, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 21.02.2018 passed in O.A. No.809 of 2011 and the order dated 09.05.2018 passed in R.A. No.03 of 2018 by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the said orders are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for fresh adjudication by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties in accordance with law."Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 7 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgement dated 14.03.2013 passed in O.A. No.1088 of 2011 by the C.A.T. Madras Bench. The operative part of the judgment is quoted below:-
"7. There is no dispute with regard to the admitted facts. On perusal of the orders passed by the coordinated Bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur, it is seen that the applicants therein also belong to the Postal Department and they were Initially appointed as EDA and thereafter they became a Group D employee and after qualified in the selection process, they were appointed as Postman and pursuant to the selection on the basis of the results of the Departmental Examination, they were appointed as Postal Assistant. Like in the present case, they were also granted the financial upgradation but the same has been subsequently withdrawn on the ground that they had already granted the benefits under TBOP/BCR. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed applications before the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal which after considered the rival submissions, observed as follows:
"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 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 8 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 the applicants as Postal Assistant. In that sense, the clarification Issued by the Pay Commission Cell of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications & IT on 25.4.2011 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 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 as direct recruit basis. But it is obvious that the 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 be relevant, and his previous career advancements cannot be called for promotions within the definition of the word 'promotion', as is require for the grant 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 A1 dated 10.8.2011 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 benefits thereafter has to be counted only from the date they were substantively appointed as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the Impugned Annexure A-1 dated 10.82011 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 31.3.2010 is upheld. The applicants shall be accordingly entitled to all the arrears, with Interest at the GPF rate of interest being payable on the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 9 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 arrears of the financial upgradation benefits admissible to the applicants, correctly granted earlier on 31.3.2010."
The above decision squarely applies to the case of the present applicant.
8. Though the learned counsel on either side submitted their contentions on various aspects, in view of the fact that the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal has dealt with the similar issue in the OAs cited supra, and the respondents have not controverted the same, we do not want to take a different view. During the hearing learned counsel for the respondents submitted that against the orders of the Jodhpur Bench, the Department has filed a Writ Petition NO.11414 of 2012 before the Rajasthan High Court and the same is pending.
9. As we have already stated that the orders of the Jodhpur Bench will apply to the case of the applicant herein, the OA is to be allowed as prayed for the applicant. Accordingly, we allow the OA by sitting aside the impugned order dated 28.9.2010. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to grant the third financial upgradation to the applicant from the date on which he has completed 30 years of service or from the date on which it is due to him till his retirement. The said direction shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also make it clear that the order rendered by us will be subject to the result of the final outcome of the Civil Writ Petition No.11414 of 2012 pending before the Apex Court. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs."
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 10 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
7. In a similar matter in OA No.1023/2014 (batch case) this Tribunal vide order dated 07.11.2019 while referring to various cases had observed as follows:
"8. We have considered the pleadings on record as well as the submissions by both the parties and also perused the judgments cited by both the sides. The question to be answered in this case is whether the appointment of the applicant as Postal Assistant through LDCE from the post of Postman can be treated as direct recruitment as claimed by the applicant based on the Judgments cited by him.
9. The applicant's counsel mainly relies upon the judgment dated 18.7.2019 of this Bench of the Tribunal In OA No. 702/12 allowing similar claim. In that OA, the applicant had cited the Judgment of CAT, Madras Bench In OA No. 1088/2011 (D. Shivkumar vs. Union of India & Others), Judgment dated 22.5.2012 of Jodhpur Bench of the CAT In the case of Bhanwar Lal Regar vs. Union of India & others and the judgment dated 5.8.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court In the case of Union of India & others vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney upholding the judgment of the Principal Bench of CAT In OA No. 375G/2011. In O.A.No. 702/12, the respondents' counsel had cited the judgment of Hon'ble Orissa High Court i.e W.P. (C) 21962/2017 in which the order of the Tribunal was set aside. The Tribunal held that the case cited by the respondents l.e. W.P. (C) 21962/2017 is factually distinguishable since the dispute in that case did not pertain to whether posting of the employee in the clerical cadre through LDCE can be considered as direct recruitment. Then after considering the judgments cited by the applicant's counsel, it was held as under:-
"9.........The specific issue decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case is that the movement of a departmental Group D employee as Postal Assistant in the Clerical cadre afler qualifying in the examination which will be open for the departinental candidates as well as outsiders as examined with reference to the rules, is to be treated as direct recruitment and not as promotion as averred by the departmental authorities.
10. In view of above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment dated 5.8.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and applying the ratio of this judgment to the present OA, the movement of the applicant from Group D to clerk on 5.10.1979 cannot be termed as a promotion for the purpose of the MACP. From the documents produced before us by the partics in this OA, it is noticed that nowhere in the order of the applicant posting him as a Clerk vide Annexure-A/2 of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 11 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 the OA, it is mentioned that it was a posting on promotion. No document has been furnished by the respondents to show that the applicant was in fact promoted when he was posted as a Clerk on 5.10.1979. Further, upgradation benefits under TBOP and BCR schemes were admittedly allowed to the applicant on the basis of his service as Clerk only without considering his service prior to posting as Clerk. From these documents, it is clear that the respondents have not been able to establish that the posting of the applicant as Clerk on 5.10.1979 was a promotion.
In the circumstances as discussed above, we are inclined to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for 3rd upgradation under the MACP Scheme in accordance with the extant rules and guidelines on the issue and as per the judgment dated 5.8.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmad Burney (supra) and communicate their decision to the applicant through a speaking and reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
10. Learned counsel for the respondents in the present OA has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18488/2016. In that case, the order of the Tribunal was passed relying on the judgments which held that the appointment of the concerned employee from Group D to the post of Postman through LDCE, is to be treated as direct recruitment. Hon'ble High Court referred to the Recruitment Rules applicable for Postman and it was held as under:-
12.in our opinion, the Tribunal has serlously committed an error in allowing original application relying upon the judgment of Har Govind (supra) which is now diluted by the subsequent decision of Division Bench Judgment in view of the Rules, we are very clear that in view of promotion first benefit to be granted from10 years from the promotional post or from the new recruitment taken as confirmed. In that view of the matter, the petitions deserves to be allowed.
13.The very object of Modified Assured Promotion Scheme is to avoid stagnation. If in every 10 years any employee is not granted any promotion, he will be given selection grade. In this way, the employee will be entitled for three selection grades. If he is not being given any promotion in 10 years, he will be given next promotion scale and if after 10 years and upto 20 years he is not getting any promotion the same benefit will be given to him on completion of 20 years from Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 12 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 the date of appointment and thereafter, if he is not granted further promotion till 30 years, he will be entitled for benefit of promotional scale after completion of 30 years. The original applicant/respondents be granted the benefits accordingly".
11. It is noticed that the order dated 18.7.2019 In O.A.No. 702/12 was passed by this Bench of the Tribunal following the judgment dated 5.8.2014 of lion'ble Delhi figh Court. It is noticer. that a almilar issue was before Alimedabad Bench of the CAT in OA No. 219/2015 In the case of Shirt B.C. Dutt vs. Union of India & Others. Wille adjudicating the issue whether the appointment of Postman and Postal Assistant through LDCE under the Postal Department can be treated as direct recruitment. It was held by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2015 In OA No. 219/2015 as under:-
"12. Shri A.D.Vankar, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that by the memos dated 16.3.2009 and 29.3.2010 the applicant was already conferred with the benefit of BCR and IIIrd financial upgradation under MACPs and withdrawal of the same is totally legal and arbitrary. He further argued that the impugned orders withdrawing the benefits already granted to the applicant is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the sprit of the MACPa Instructions issued by the Government of India and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. To elaborate his submission he submitted that the appolutment of the applicant to the post of Postal Assistant cannot be treated as promotion as his appolatment from Postman to Postal Assistant was subject to the condition of fulfilling eligibility and after qualifying the competitive examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that he got promotion from Postman to Postal Assistant. The specific contention of Shri A.D. Vankar is that the appointment of the applicant from the cadre of Postman to the cadre of Postal Assistant cannot be termed as promotion, because he was promoted as Postal Assistant after passing the competitive examination. Therefore, the stand of the respondents cannot be accepted, he argued. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon following orders:
(i) The orders of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dhanwar Lal Regar v. Union of India & Ors. in O.A.No.382/2011 decided on 22.5.2012.
(ii) The orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.3756/2011 in the case of Shakeel Ahmad Burney v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 21.12.2012.
(iii) The order dated 05.8.2014 in W.P.(C). No.4131/2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by which the order of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2012 in OA. No.3756/2011 was confirmed.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 13 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
(iv) The order dated 10.08.2015 in D.B Civil Writ Petition No.11336/2012 Union of India & Ors. v. Bhanwar Lal Regar by which the under of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal at Sl.No.(i) above was confirmed.
Shri A.D.Vankar argued that the case on hand being identical to that of the case decided by Jodhpur Bench and the Principal Bench of this Tribunal (supra), the present OA also requires to be allowed in terms of the same.
..............................
19. Ms. Prachi Upadhyay argued that no reliance can be placed either upon Bhanwar Lal Regar (supra) or Shakeel Ahmad Burney (supra) in view of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by its order dated 29.9.2014 in RP.No.441/2014 & C.M.No. 15847/2014 in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmad Burney was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. She pointed out that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal while passing the order in Shakeel Ahmad Burney (supra) placed reliance upon the order of Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in Bhanwar Lal Regar (supra) and since the orders of the Principal Bench in Shakeel Ahmad Burney (supra) was set aside by the Han'blee High Court of Delhi in said RP.No.441/2014 and CM.No.15847/2014 and the matter was remanded hack, no reliance can be placed upon either of the orders passed by the Jodhpur Bench and the Principal Bench, since they were set aside.
20. We have gone through the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 29.9.2014 in RP.Na 441/2014 and C.MN. 15847/2014, it reads as under:
It is now brought to the notice of the Court that the Rule which prevailed at the time when the respondent appeared in the test and was finally promoted was, in fact, Indian Postal and Telegraph (Time Scale Clark) Recruitment Rules, 1971. Rule 4 of these rules outlines the method of recruitment, the age limit and other qualifications which are provided in column 4 to 12 of the Schedule (to the Rules), Column 4 of the said Rules clarifies that the post is a non selection post for which essential educational qualification is matriculation or equivalent. The method of recruitment is 50% by direct recruitment, and 50% by promotion through test.
Concededly, the respondent/applicant was promoted in 1978. The UOls case is that these rules were not brought to the notice of the CAT or to this Court, when the final Judgment was made.
Having regard to the Rules, the Court is, prima facie, of the opinion that the Uols clalm has some merit and requires Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 14 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 consideration. In these circumstances, the judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 is hereby reviewed.
W.P.(C) 4131/2014 We have today recalled the final judgment and order dismissing the writ petition. We have heard counsels finally, both in regard to the review petition as well as on the writ petition. We have Indicated that the reason for recalling the judgment was that the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Time Scale Clerks and Sorters) Rules, 1971 were not taken into consideration, since they were not brought to the notice of the CAT or this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant argues that the applicability of the 1971 Rules is in serious question, as the applicant was not, in fact, promoted to the post of Time Scale Clerk-the category to which the 1971 Rule applies.
Having regard to the nature of allegations made, it would be more appropriate that the me CAT considers the merits of the case i.e the claim of the respondent/applicant for the MACP benefit, In the light of the new development relied upon by the UOI as to the existence and applicability of 1971 Rules to the respondents case. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the CAT for fresh reconsideration, The parties are granted liberty to file additional affidavit.
It is clear that the orders of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.3756/2011 in the of Shakeel Ahmad Burney v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 21.12.2012 (supra) has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore, we are in agreement with the submission of Ms.Prachi Upadhyay. .......................
25. We may further observe that the method of recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion through LDCE. The very fact that certain percentage of posts is carmarked exclusively for the departmental candidates itself implies an element of promotion. In the 50% of the posts exclusively earmarked for departmental candidates, open market candidate is not entitled to participate and compete. In fact competition in respect of the said 50% of the posts is narrowed down. Such narrowing down competition itself involves an element of uplifting the departmental candidates to get appointment to a higher grade post. On this count also we reject the contention of Shri A.D.Vankar that selection to the post of Postal Assistant cannot be held to be a promotion. Therefore, we again reiterate the views and findings of the Jaipur Bench of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 15 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 the Tribunal and consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the cancellation of the order bearing memo No.B.1/1/BCR/2008-2009 dated 16.3.2009 by which the applicant was granted BCR placement and the order dated 29.3.2010 by which IIIrd financial upgradation under MACPs was granted. .............................
27. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 10.08.2015 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11336/2012 Union of India & Ors. v. Bhanwar Lal Regar upon which Shri A.D.Vankar placed strong reliance. At paragraph 16 above, we have already extracted the operative portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. The reason assigned by the Hon'ble High Court for its decision is as under:
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 At the end of the judgment the very same reason is reiterated which is as under:
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.
At this juncture, we may point out that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C). No.4131/2014 originally declined to interfere with the orders of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2012 In O.A.No.3756/2011, but subsequently, on the review petition filed by the respondents in R.P.No.441/2014 by referring to the fact that the respondents have pointed out the rule the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under: ...............................
28. The order of the Delhi High Court dated 29.9.2014 in R.P.No.441/2014 and C.M.No. 15847/2014 makes it clear that method of recruitunent to the post of Sorting Assistant is governed by the Rule called Indian Postal and Telegraph (Time Scale Clerk) Recruitment Rules, 1971. But, somehow neither the said Rules nor the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said R.P. No.441/2014 and C.M. No. 15847/2014 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. In our opinion, had it been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, its decision may be otherwise. Therefore, in view of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to review its order in W.P.(C) No.4131/2014 by its order dated Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 16 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 29.9.2014 in R.P.No.441/2014 and C.M.No.15847/2014 by referring to the said Recruitment Rules, 1971, we find it difficult to grant the relief sought by the applicant by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11336/2012."
12. It is seen from above that the Judgment dated 5.8.2014 was reviewed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 29.9.2014 passed in R.P. No.441/2014. In a similar dispute in the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karnal and others vs. Nand Kishore & another Civil Writ Petition No. 4829/2015 before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was held as under:-
"Respondent No.1 was initially appointed as GDS on 6.1.1970. Thereafter, he was selected and appointed as Postman on 11.7.1974. On 30.6.1980 he was appointed as Clerk (Postal Assistant) after he had passed a Limited Departmental Competitive examination. This appointment was made as per the Recruitment Rules known as Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Time Scale Clerks and Sorters) Recruitment Rules, 1971.
On revision of the pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the post of clerk was re-designated as Postal Assistant. Respondent No.1 was allowed financial upgradation under the Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP) in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 on completing 16 years of service as Postal Assistant vide order dated 10.12.1998 w.e.f. 1.7.1996. He was granted 2nd financial upgradation under Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme on completion of 26 years of service as Postal Assistant vide order dated 10.7.2007 w.e.f. 1.1.2007. He retired on 31.8.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. After two months of retirement he served legal notice claiming the benefit of 3rd ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-.
...............................
We have heard learned counsel and are of the view that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
It's not disputed that appointment of Postal Assistants is governed by the 'Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Time Scale Clerks and Sorters) Recruitment Rules, 1971' (for short "1971 Rules"). It has come on record that on revision of the pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the post of clerk was re-designated as Postal Assistant). The same is as under:
"1. Short Title and Commencement- These Rules may be called the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Time Scale Clerks and Sorters) Recruitment Rules, 1971.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 17 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
2. Application.- These rules shall apply to the posts as specified in column 2 and 3 of the said Schedule.
3. Classification and Scale of Pay. The classification of the said posts and the scales of pay attached thereto shall be as specified in columns 2 and 3 of the said Schedule.
4. Method of Recruitment, Age-limit and other qualifications.- The Method of Recruitment, Age-limit and other qualifications. The method of recruitment to the said posts, age limit, qualifications and other matters relating to them shall be as specified in columns 4 to 12 of the Schedule aforesaid:
Provided that the upper age-limit prescribed for direct recruitment may be relaxed in the case of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders Issued by the Central Government from time to time.
5. Disqualifications.- No person, (a) who has entered Into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or
(b) Who having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for appointment to the said post. Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable 6 of 20 CWP-
4829-2015 and connected matters [7] to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this rule.
6. Power to relax. Where the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.
7. Saving. Nothing in these rules shall affect the reservations and other concessions required to be provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard.
..........................
The Madras High Court in Union of India and ors. Vs. D. Sivakumar and another (supra) affirmed the view of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) In OA No. 1088 of 2011 that appointment as Postal Assistant was in the nature of direct recruitment. The Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Νο. 382/2011 and connected cases Bhanwar Lal Regar Vs. Union Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 18 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 of India and ors. Significantly, the Madras High Court while dismissing the writ petitions also did not refer to the relevant rules.
The relevant part of the observations of the High Court is 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-1. 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 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-l, 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 Career Progression Scheme in a different manner."
SLP (C) No.4848/2016 Union of India and Ors. vs. D. Shivakumar, against this Judgment was dismissed on 16.8.2016. However the question of law was kept open.
.........................
Thus, it is apparent that the decisions relied on by respondent No.1 have been rendered without consideration of the 1971 Rules as per which 50% posts of clerks and sorters were to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion through a test from amongst permanent and quasi-permanent officials below the time- scale of Clerks and Sorters grade in accordance with the orders issued Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 19 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 by the Posts and Telegraphs Board from time to time. It has also been held that an appointment made after holding a limited departmental competitive examination cannot be termed as a promotion but would be a case of direct recruitment.
These decisions have rightly been distinguished by the Rajesthan High Court in the recent case of Dev Karan Mahala. Har Govind Sharma's case was earlier distinguished in Ramkaran Kumbar's case and it was held that where rules specifically provide for a promotion quota which may be filled in by way of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, the promotions so made have to be considered as promotions for the purpose of ACP. The Delhi High Court in the cases of Man Singh and Ajay Panday (supra) has also hold that promotions made through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the departmental candidates falling in the feeder cadre are promtions and not 19 of 20 CWP-4829-2015 and connected matters [20] direct recruitment. Ramkaran Kumhar has been affirmed and followed in Dev Karan Mahala's case (supra). We are in respectful agreement with the ratio of the Judgments in Kamkaran Kuinhar and Dev Karan Mahala's case (supra).
Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal are set aside. It is held that the selection and appointment of the Original Applicants as Postal Assistants after passing the departmental test is a promotion and not direct recruitment. Their entitlement to ACP/MACP be considered accordingly."
13. The case of Union of India vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney in W.P. (C) No. 2806/2016 Impugning the order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal is under consideration of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The following order has been passed on 30.9.2019 In the above W.P. *1. This is the second round of litigation on the issue of whether employees of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India who have served as Postal Assistants would be entitled to the third MACP benefit. It may be mentioned at the outset that the MACP benefit is meant to make up for an employee not being able to get promotions despite long years of service.
2. An incidental question that arises in the context of the governing recruitment rules (RRs) for the post of Postal Assistant is whether persons who got appointed as Postal Assistants by qualifying In Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) should be considered as direct recruits or promotes?
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 20 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
3. The case of the Union of India is that Postal Assistants appointed as such through LDCE should be considered as promotees by virtue of the relevant RRs. On the other hand, the Respondents herein who have succeeded before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT )Principal Bench rely on a series of judgments of the High Courts of Rajasthan, Kamatka and Madras which have held that such Postal Assistants who have been appointed through LDCE are to be considered as direct recruits and not as promotees.
4. The view of the Madras High Court in its judgment dated 4th February 2015 in CWP 30629 of 2014 (Union of India v. D.Shiva Kumar) which holds that Postal Assistants who have been appointed through LDCE are to be considered as direct recruits and not as promotees has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP No.4848 of 2016 by an order dated 16th August 2016. Against the said order Review Petition (C) No. 1939 of 2017 was filed which was dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits by the Supreme Court by an order dated 13th September 2017.
5. However, as regards the other two High Courts, there appears to be a re-thinking. The High Court of Kamatka in a judgment dated 27th November 2018 in W.P.No. 102322 of 2018 (S-CAT) (Union of India v. Smt. R. K. Kulkarni) has taken a view different from the earlier view taken by it in a judgment dated 28th September 2016 In WP No. 200807 of 2016 (Union of India v Sh.Basanda Nayak) where it upheld the contention of the present Respondents and held that appointment through LDCE as Postal Assistant would not be by way of promotion but by way of direct recruitment. Despite noticing that the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of the Union of India against the said judgment in Basanda Nayak, the Kamataka High Court has in Union of India v. Smt. R.K. Kulkarni taken a contrary view on the ground that the earlier judgment did not discuss the relevant RRs. The Court is informed that against the said Judgment of the Karnataka High Court a review petition has been filed by the Respondents therein which is stated to be pending
6. Turning now to the High Court of Rajasthan, by a judgment dated 10th December 2015 in D.B. CWP No. 16150 of 2013 (Union of India v. Jagdish Prashad Sharma), the Rajasthan High Court held that appointment to the post of Postal Assistant through LDCE should not be construed as promotion but by way of direct recruitment. This judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP (C) Diary No.22650 of 2018 on 30th July 2018. Likewise, the Supreme Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 21 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 Court also dismissed another SLP against the same Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court by order dated 10th August 2018 in SLP (C) Diary No.23260 of 2018 (Union of India v. Bhanwar Lal Regar) and this was by a 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
7. Subsequently, another Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in a judgment dated 10th May 2018 In D.B. CWP No 18488 of 2016 differed from the earlier view In D.B. CWP No. 11336 of 2012 and batch and held that appointment as Postal Assistant through LDCE should be construed as appointment by way of promotion. Against the said judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 10th May 2018, a SLP (C) Diary No. 4793 of 2019 has been filed (Dev Karan Mahala and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) in which notice has been issued by the Supreme Court
8. Thus, it is seen that as far as Karnataka High Court is concerned the review petition is pending whereas as far as Rajasthan High Court is concerned an SLP Is pending in the Supreme Court.
9. Counsel for the Union of India in these petitions urges that this Court should follow the changed views of the Kamataka High Court and the Rajasthan High Court whereas counsel for the respondents insist that the earlier views of the said two High Courts as well as of the Madras High Court in the D. Shiva Kumar case, all of which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court should be followed.
10. It may also be noticed here that an order dated 19th February 2019 has been issued by the Superintendent of Post Office, Seekar Division, Seekar (Rajasthan) noting the above history of the litigation and deciding to implement the judgment dated 15th February 2018 of the Rajasthan High Court the SLP against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court but subject to the above history of condition that "this may not be treated as precedent in other similar identical cases."
11. The Court finds that against the changed view of the Rajasthan High Court, the Supreme Court is considering a Special Leave Petition in which notice has been issued. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court considers it appropriate to await the outcome of SLP (C) Diary No 4793 of 2019 (Dev Karan Mahala v. Union of India) before proceeding with the further hearing of these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are adjourned to 19th February 2020. "
14. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal In a similar case of Sh. Mahender Singh vs. Union of India & others in OA No. 2679/2011 has held that the selection as Postal Assistant through LDCE will be treated as promotion. In that case, vide order dated 24.9.2018, It was held by the Principal Bench as under:-Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 22 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 *15. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Man Singh Vs. Union of India and Others W.P (C) 2887/2012 dated 21.12.2012 and also in subsequent decision in Ajay Panday Vs. Union of India and Others W.P. (C) 1938/2011 dated 28.07.2014 while dealing with an identical issue, i.e. whether the appointment to a post by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination tantamounts to appointment by promotion or is a direct recruitment appointment, after considering the DOP&T U.O. dated 18.11.2011, categorically held that any appointment to a higher post through LDCE examination is a promotion only and the Recruitment Rules or guidelines which would apply to appointments through LDCE would have to be those which are applicable to appointment by promotions. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs S. Ravindran and Others, 1995 Supp4 SCC 654, where the promotions were made to the next higher post partly on the basis of seniority cum-fitness and partly on the basis of LDCE held that both the categories should be treated as a single class.
16. In view of the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which is the jurisdictional High Court of this Bench, and also of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appointment of the applicant to the post of Postal Assistant cannot be treated as a direct the recruitment and the same should be treated as promotion only. Hence, in this view of the matter, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents in deciding the claim of the applicant for the purpose of granting the financial benefits under ACP/MACP benefits."
15. From the discussions above, it is clear that as per the Recruitment Rules, 1971 under which the selection to the post of Postal Assistant has been carried out, 50% of the posts are to be filled up by promotion through LDCE and 50% by direct recruitment. As held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dev Karan Mahala (supra) and Ram Karan Kumhar (supra), the appointment/selection to a higher post through LDCE is to be treated in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The decision in the case of Dev Karan Mahala (supra) has been challenged by filing the SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court, which is pending as observed in the order dated 30.9.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 2806/2016 in the case of Union of India vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney. The order dated 18.7.2019 of this Tribunal in OA No. 702/2012, which has been cited by the applicant's counsel was passed following the judgment dated 5.8.2014 of Han'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney, which was reviewed subsequently in the R.P. No. 441/2014 as discussed in the order dated 17.11.2015 of Ahmedabad Bench of the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 23 O.A.260/00809 of 2011 Tribunal in OA No. 219/2015 (vide para 11 of this order). The fact that the judgment dated 5.8.2014 was reviewed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court subsequently was not considered by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 18.7.2019 in the OA No. 702/2012. Further, in the said order, the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1971, which are extracted in the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court In the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karnal and others vs. Nand. Kishore & another Civil Writ Petition No. 4829/2015 vide para 12 above, have not been considered. For these reasons, the order dated 18.7.2019 of this Bench of the Tribunal will not be applicable to the present OA.
16. We take note of the fact that in such cases, In spite of the litigations and disputes raised by the employees in different coordinate Benches of this Tribunal on this issue,, no clarification or guidelines regarding the point whether the selection under the Recruitment Rules In question is to be treated as promotion or direct recruitment has been issued by the respondents/competent authority. In case the notification for the LDCE and appointment order e selected candidates mention clearly the rules under which the selection is being made, stating whether it is promotion or direct recruitment, then the disputes like the present OA can be avoided.
17. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are unable to allow the reliefs sought for In this OA as well as other OAs In this batch and are of the view that in view of the judgments as discussed above and taking into consideration the fact that the SLP (C) Diary No.4793 of 2019 in the case of Dev Karan Mahala v. Union of India is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court as observed in the order dated 30.9.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 2806/2016, in the case of Union of India vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney, the question at Para-8 of this order as to whether the appointment of the applicants as Postal Assistant through LDCE, in these OAs can be considered as promotion or direct recruitment, can be answered finally after disposal of the SLP(C) Diary No.4793 of 2019. Accordingly, we dispose of these OAs with direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicants in accordance with the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP (C) Diary No.4793 of 2019 In the case of Dev Karan Mahala vs. Union of India. Under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs."
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter in Dev Karan Mahala & Ors versus Union of India is still pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30' 24 O.A.260/00809 of 2011
9. In view of the above, since the matter has not attained finality, we dispose of the O.A with direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicant in accordance with the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Karan Mahala Vs Union of India. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) K.B/PS Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.06 15:03:54 +05'30'