Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Roy Daniel on 29 May, 2025
1
OP(CAT) 123/2020
2025:KER:37860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 123 OF 2020
O.A.NO.180 OF 2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695033.
3 POSTMASTER GENERAL
CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI-682020.
4 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
ERNAKULAM DIVISION, ERNAKULAM- 682011.
BY ADVS.O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SCGC
RESPONDENT/S:
ROY DANIEL, (RETD, POSTAL ASSISTANT), PPO NO.2067/KE/2011,
CHANNANATHIL HOUSE, MUKLANTHURUTHY - 682314.
BY ADV SRI.C.P.JOHNY (ERNAKULAM)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(CAT) 123/2020
2025:KER:37860
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025) Basant Balaji J., The Respondents in O.A.No.180/00855/2017 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the Petitioners, and the Respondent was the Applicant.
2. This Original Petition seeks to resolve the question: Was the Respondent's appointment as Postal Assistant on 14 March 1988, a promotion or a fresh appointment? The Tribunal determined it as a fresh appointment, thereby qualifying the Respondent for the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).
3. Brief facts essential for disposing of this original petition are as follows. The Respondent began his career as an Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor with the Petitioners on 28 February 1978. Three years later, on 4 October 1981, he was selected and appointed as a Postman. While serving as a Postman, the Respondent successfully took a competitive examination to become a Postal Assistant and was appointed to the Ernakulam Head Post Office on 14 March 1988. After 16 years of service, in April 2004, the Respondent was granted the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) scheme, which was then in effect. The Respondent superannuated on 30 September 2011.
3OP(CAT) 123/2020 2025:KER:37860
4. When the Respondent was denied his 3rd MACP, he approached the Tribunal with the Original Application. He sought a declaration that his earlier TBOP placement should be recognized as his 1st MACP, and that he was entitled to the 2nd MACP from 1 September 2008. The Original Application also requested a revision of his Pension Payment Order (PPO) to reflect an increased monthly pension, factoring in the 2nd MACP eligibility, along with the payment of all associated arrears.
5. The Respondent's argument to the Tribunal was that his regular service commenced as a Postal Assistant on 14 March 1988. Despite receiving his first financial upgradation under TBOP in April 2004, the Department mistakenly considered his selection as a Postal Assistant, a promotion. This led the Department to count the TBOP benefit as the second financial upgradation, pushing the third financial upgradation under MACP to 2014, as it would only accrue after 10 years in the same pay scale. Consequently, the Respondent was deemed ineligible, having superannuated in 2011.
6. In their reply statement, the Petitioners produced Annex-R3, which comprises the Recruitment Rules for Time Scale Clerks and Sorters within the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department. These Rules stipulate that 50% of Postal Assistant posts are filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.
7. It is undisputed that the Respondent joined service as a Postman on 4 October 1981, and subsequently became a Postal Assistant on 14 March 1988, after successfully passing a competitive examination for the Postal Assistant Cadre. The Petitioners assert that the Respondent's entry into the Postal 4 OP(CAT) 123/2020 2025:KER:37860 Assistant role via this competitive examination indicates he was promoted under the 50% quota outlined in the Recruitment Rules. Following 16 years of service as a Postal Assistant, the Respondent was placed under the TBOP scheme in April 2004. The Petitioners argue this can only be considered his second financial upgradation. Consequently, under the MACP scheme, eligibility for the third MACP would only arise after 10 years in the same pay scale, meaning it would be due in 2014. However, since the Respondent superannuated in 2011, the Petitioners contend he is ineligible.
8. A Division Bench of this court addressed a similar issue in O.P.(CAT) No. 23 of 2018 and related cases. The Bench considered rulings from the Jodhpur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, and the High Courts of Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and Madras. Ultimately, it concluded that an appointment as a Postal Assistant obtained through a competitive examination must be considered a promotion under the 50% quota.
9. As noted earlier, since the Applicant received the TBOP in April 2004, he is not eligible for a second upgradation under MACP. Considering the Division Bench's judgment in the aforementioned Original Petition, and the fact that the Respondent's appointment as Postal Assistant on 14 March 1988 is deemed a promotion (not a fresh appointment), the Applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the Original Petition. The Tribunal erred in allowing the Original Application by failing to consider the relevant Recruitment Rules.
5OP(CAT) 123/2020 2025:KER:37860 In the result, this Original Petition is allowed, and the Tribunal's order in O.A.No.180/00855/2017, dated 17 June 2019, is set aside.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE dl/ 6 OP(CAT) 123/2020 2025:KER:37860 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 123/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.230/2015. Exhibit P1(A1) COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO.POSTAL/2011/KE/20617/PEN 9 DATED 14.9.2011 Exhibit P1(A2) COPY OF ANNEX-1 4. ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME PAGE 17 TO PAGE 18 OF SWAMY'S COMPILATION OF CCS REVISED PAY RULES 2008 (SIXTH PAY COMMISSION) Exhibit P1(A3) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN WP NO.30629/2014.
Exhibit P1 (A4) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
NO.4848/2016.
Exhibit P1(A5) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.5.2017
ADDRESSED TO SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1(A6) COPY OF THE REPLY TO REPRESENTATION OF THE
APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER NO.B1/5-25/XIII/16-17 DTD 24.07.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO.855/2017 BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
Exhibit P2(R1) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F-7/[MACPS]/2009-PCC DATED 24.09.2009 Exhibit P2(R2) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.4-7/9MACPS]/2009-CC DATED 18.10.2010.
Exhibit P2(R3) TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN POST AND TELEGRAPH( TIME SCALE CLERK AND SORTERS) RECRUITMENT RULES ,1971. Exhibit P2(R4) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2014 IN OA.
725/2012.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT 1 TO 3
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2019 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA NO. 180/00855/2017.