Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Union Of India & Ors vs P Rajagopalan on 2 April, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Review Application No.180/0012/2026
in
Original Application No.180/00188/2024
Thursday, this the 2nd day of April, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum. 695001
2. Director Postal Services, Calicut Region, Nadakkavu, Calicut
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Palakkad Division, Palakkad -678001
-Review Applicants/Respondents in the O.A.
[By Advocate: Mr. Martin G Thottan]
Versus
P Rajagopalan, Aged 61 Years, S/o Velukutty Menon, Retired Postman,
Alathur Sub-Division, Palakkad Division, Residing at Palakkal Kuruppath
House, Palampalakode, Palakkad -678544
- Respondent/Applicant in O.A.
[By Advocate: Mr. V.N.Mohanadasan, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 30.03.2026, the Tribunal on
02.4.2026 delivered the following:
Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30'
2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member In this Review Application filed under Section 17(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, petitioners are the respondents in the Original Application. That O.A. was filed by the respondent in the R.A. aggrieved by non-granting of 2nd MACP after completing 10 years of service from the date of grant of 1st MACP, during the period he stood stagnated without any promotion. He gave a representation to the respondents, which was rejected by Annexure-A4 stating that non- financial upgradation under MACP was considered by the Departmental Screening Committee which had not approved proposal for grant of 2 nd MACP as his APAR grading for the year 2017-2018 was 5.75, below bench mark. Such a bench mark was communicated to the respondent, against which he had not given any representation. Thus the 2nd MACP was declined to him. Aggrieved by the same, the original applicant approached the Tribunal for quashing Annexure-A4.
2. According to the original applicant, the respondent in the R.A., he was granted 1st MACP on 13.03.2003 and was entitled to get 2nd Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30' 3 MACP from 30.03.2023. He claimed that prior to 30.03.2023, for the preceding five years, his APAR rating was 'very good' and therefore, there is no justification in denying him the 2 nd MACP. On the other hand, the applicants in the R.A. maintained that his case was not recommended since his benchmark grading of APAR for the year 2017-2018 was 5.75, which was below the bench mark and thus the screening committee decided not to recommend him for grant of 2 nd MACP. That stand of the respondents in the O.A. was challenged before this Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing counsel on both sides and also verifying the records, found that the period from which he had claimed 2nd MACP was from 30.03.2023 after completion of 10 years from the date of grant of 1st MACP, during the immediately for the preceding five years, he had maintained good APAR grading and therefore, starting from 2018-2019 for five years till the date on which he claimed 2 nd MACP he maintained 'very good' APAR rating and therefore, Annexure-A4 could not have stood scrutiny. Thus Annexure-A4 was quashed to the extent of denying benefit to the original applicant and the respondents were directed to issue orders granting him 2nd MACP and to release entire Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30' 4 consequential benefits within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. That order is now sought to be reviewed by the respondents in the O.A.
4. The trump-card of this R.A. is Annexure-RA2 DoPT O.M. dated 08.05.2017. According to the petitioners, grant of MACP is governed by this O.M., 'APAR for the previous five years preceding the T- 1 year or to be considered by the DPC'. The said DoPT O.M., according to the review applicants, is the document governing the subject, but it could not be produced at the time of final hearing; therefore, in the light of of Annexure-RA2, the order is liable to be reviewed and set aside.
5. In order to attract Order XLVII CPC, there must be 'discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him'. Here, the review applicants submit that Annexure-RA2 could not be produced at the time of hearing and Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30' 5 passing the Annexure-RA1 order, so that, in the light of production of Annexure-RA2, the Annexure-RA1 order dated 20.06.2025 is liable to be reviewed.
6. But, after hearing counsel on both sides, for two reasons we are unable to agree with the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. Firstly, Annexure-RA2 order is an order dated 08.05.2017. It cannot be thought that for the late production of this document, Annexure-RA1 order should be reviewed and set aside. Annexure-RA2 order was issued way back on 08.05.2017 and it cannot be said that the review applicants had discovered this document only subsequent in point of time. In a slightly different context, in Dokka Samuel v. Dr.Jacob Lazarus Chelly [(1997) 4 SCC 478] the Apex Court ruled that omission on the part of the counsel to cite an authority of law does not amount to error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, such an argument cannot be accepted.
7. Secondly and more importantly, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel could not convince us as to how Annexure-RA2 OM would suit to the facts of the case. As shown by the Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30' 6 subject of O.M., it deals with 'procedure to be observed by the Departmental Promotion Committees-model calendar for DPCs and relevant year upto which APARs are to be considered and model calendar for conducting DPCs'. Such an O.M. or the subject matter in the O.M. does not have any bearing in the facts of the case.
8. As we said earlier, here, the grievance of the original applicant was non-granting of 2nd MACP even after completion of 10 years despite during the previous five years from 2013, the relevant period, he bore 'very good' APAR grading; still, for the reason that a grading which was less than the benchmark beyond the preceding five years, the screening committee did not recommend his case for grant of 2nd MACP. After considering the rival contentions and materials, we found that the five years period reckoned by the screening committee was fallacious, such a below benchmark grading had occurred beyond five years and during the immediately preceding five years he bore 'very good' APAR grading and therefore the respondents did not consider the case appropriately and thus the O.A. was allowed.
9. From a cursory reading of Annexure-RA2 it is clear that the Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30' 7 O.M. has no application to the facts of the case. It deals with promotion and procedure to be adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Here, the Departmental Promotion Committee has no role. For considering the grant of MACP or for grading the APAR rating the Departmental Promotion Committee has no role to play. On the other hand, it is for the screening committee specified by the MACP scheme to make recommendation the case of an employee for grant of MACP. In other words, Annexure-RA2 OM cannot advance the case of the review applicants.
On evaluation of the circumstances, the Review Application fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 2nd April, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30'
8
List of Annexures
Annexure RA1: True copy of the Order dated 20.06.2025 in O.A. No.
180/188/24
Annexure RA2: True copy of the Directorate letter no DOPT OM No.
22011/4/2013- Estt(D) dated 8-05-2017.
************
Deepa S 2026.04.02 16:22:32+05'30'