Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jagdish Kumar vs D/O Post on 8 April, 2026
1
Item No.35 (C-V)
O.A. No.4270/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.4270/2016
Order reserved on : 13.03.2026
Order pronounced on: 08.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Jagdish Kumar (Aged 57 years), „C‟,
S/o Late Shri Mange Ram,
Stenographer Gr.-I,
Office of the Chief Postmaster General,
Delhi Postal Circle,
Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi- 110001
Residence Address :-
H.NO. O-158, ‟O‟-Block Extn.
Geeta Enclave,
Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110059
...APPLICANT
(By Advocate : Shri Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
Union Of India, through
1. The Secretary (Post)
Ministry of Communications,
RACHNA KAPOOR
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg,
NewDelhi - 110001
2
Item No.35 (C-V)
O.A. No.4270/2016
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Delhi Postal Circle,
Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001
3. DOP&T
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110001
...RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Shri Hanu Bhaskar)
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
3
Item No.35 (C-V)
O.A. No.4270/2016
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Postal Assistant on 17.10.1983 after completing training, and his services were later regularized. He worked satisfactorily throughout with a clean service record and no adverse remarks.
2. The applicant was promoted as Stenographer Grade III on 15.01.1988 after qualifying the departmental examination. Thereafter, the Government introduced the Assured Career Progression Scheme on 09.08.1999 to grant financial upgradation to employees who did not receive timely promotions. Under this scheme, the applicant was Digitally signed by granted the first financial upgradation on 28.12.2001 RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR and his pay was fixed accordingly. Thereafter, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced on 19.05.2009, providing three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service. The applicant completed 30 years of 4 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 service on 17.10.2013 and claimed that he became entitled to the third financial upgradation from that date by including his earlier service as Postal Assistant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant made several representations starting from 26.07.2013 and again in 2014 requesting grant of the third MACP benefit, but the respondents replied that his case would be considered only after completion of 30 years of service, without properly counting his earlier service. Despite repeated representations dated 03.02.2014, 29.05.2014, 07.08.2014 and 12.09.2014, the respondents did not grant the benefit and issued replies reiterating their stand. The applicant also pointed out that similarly situated employees and even juniors had been granted the said benefit by counting their past service, but the same was denied to him, resulting in discrimination. Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR
4. Thereafter, the applicant submitted further representations and sought information under the Right to Information Act on 20.05.2015 and 23.06.2015 regarding the status of his case. The respondents replied on 03.06.2015 and 28.07.2015 5 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 stating that his case was under examination and that records had earlier been misplaced, and no final decision could be communicated. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-
"i) direct/command the Respondents to extend the benefits of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 19.05.2009, Annexure - A-9 and regulate/revised the dates of grant of 1st MACP and 2nd MACP;
ii) direct/command the Respondents to grant the 3rd MACP to the applicant by including his previous service on the post of Postal Assistant and thereafter, the 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of regular service w.e.f. 17.10.2013;
iii) direct/command the Respondents to make payment of the resultant arrears with interest @ 24% p.a.
iv) any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant alongwith heavy costs against the Respondents, in the interest of justice."Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant had already completed the required 30 years of regular service on 17.10.2013 and that his past service as Postal Assistant must be counted for 6 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 grant of the third MACP. He alleged that the action of the respondents in denying this benefit is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the applicable rules and policies, especially when similarly placed employees have been granted the same benefit.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the similarly situated employees/juniors of the applicant have been granted the benefit of financial upgradations by taking into consideration their initial service rendered by them on their previous posts of Postal Assistant/LDC etc., however, the respondents are not considering the service rendered by him on the post of Postal Assistant and are counting the date of his regular appointment/promotion for granting financial upgradation, which is illegal and arbitrary.
7. In support of his contention of counting previous service, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the OMs of DOP&T dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure-A-24) Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR and 04.10.2012 (Annexure-A-25), which says that regular service rendered in previous Organisation/Office shall be counted alongwith the regular service in the new Organisation/Office for the 7 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 purpose of granting Financial Upgradation under the MACPs.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-
(i) Dhinrendra Chamoli & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1986-1-SCC-637;
(ii) Surinder Singh Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD 1986-1-SCC-639;
(iii) R.D. Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1987-4-
SCC-505;
(iv) Bhagwan Dass & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 1987-4-SCC-634
(v) State of UP & Ors. Vs. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors.
(1989)-ATLT-SC-214
(vi) State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha 2006-2- SCC-748;
(vii) Maya Devi Vs. Raj Kumari Batra 2010 (9) SCC RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR 486
(viii) Union of India Vs. Raj Pal SLP(C) No.CC-
7467/2013 dated 15.04.2013.
8Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016
9. In addition to the aforesaid, the applicant has relied upon the orders/judgment of Hon‟ble High Court and this Tribunal in the following cases :-
(i) Order of this Tribunal in OA No.3743/2013 in the matter of Praveen Swami Vs. UOI & Ors.
dated 16.11.2017.
(ii) Order of this Tribunal in OA No.627/2019 in the matter of Naresh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. dated 20.02.2023;
(iii) Decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.8623/2020 in the matter of Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Hira Lal dated 20.02.2026
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the OA is barred by RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by limitation as cause of action arose on 30.09.2013, RACHNA KAPOOR when the applicant was officially informed of his entitlement and the correct date for the grant of his third MACP. Having failed to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed one-year period, and without filing any application for the condonation of the delay 9 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 of over two years, the Application is legally unsustainable.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per the prevailing rules and specific clarifications issued by the Directorate, the appointment of a Postal Assistant to the post of Stenographer Grade III is treated as a direct recruitment for the purposes of financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and MACP schemes. Consequently, the period of service for calculating eligibility for the third MACP, which requires 30 years of regular service, must be reckoned from the date of his entry into the Stenographer cadre i.e. 15.01.1988, rather than from 17.10.2013, as claimed.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the grant of previous financial upgradations was correctly regularized based on departmental rules and Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR that the applicant's reliance on counting of his total service since 1983 is misplaced as it ignores the change in cadre which reset the service period for these specific benefits. Therefore, the action taken by 10 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 the respondents is legal and no discrimination is meted out to the applicant.
13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments/orders :-
(i) S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P. AIR 1990 SC 10;
(ii) State of Punjab vs. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC Page 1;
(iii) UOI vs. Ratan Chandra Samanta JT 1993 (3) SC page 418
(iv) Ex-Captain Harish Uppal vs. UOI JT 1994 (3) page 126
(v) State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Miss Ajay Walia JT 1997(6) SC 592;
(vi) E. Paraneswaran and Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.
2003 (12) SCC 270;
RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR
(vii) UOI vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59
(viii) D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India SLP (CC) No. 3709/2011
(ix) Smt. Shanta Jaswant Dumasia vs. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce (O.A. No. 524/2009) 11 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016
(x) Gurdial Singh Saini vs. Department of Posts (O.A. No. 3520/2014)
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material placed on record.
15. The limited issue which arises for our consideration is whether the past regular service rendered by the applicant as Postal Assistant is liable to be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme.
16. It is not in dispute that the applicant was initially appointed as Postal Assistant on 17.10.1983 and thereafter appointed as Stenographer Grade III on 15.01.1988 after qualifying a departmental examination, and that he has rendered continuous Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR and uninterrupted service. The denial of the benefit of 3rd MACP is solely on account of exclusion of his past service rendered prior to his appointment as Stenographer. The principal stand of the respondents is that the appointment of the applicant to the post of 12 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 Stenographer Grade III is to be treated as a fresh entry and, therefore, the past service rendered as Postal Assistant cannot be counted for the purpose of MACP. This stand, in our considered view, is not tenable either on facts or in law. Firstly, the material on record clearly establishes that the applicant has rendered continuous service under the same department without any break. His movement to the post of Stenographer was through a departmental examination and not by way of fresh recruitment from the open market. The respondents have failed to demonstrate as to how such movement can be equated with a fresh appointment so as to obliterate the past service already rendered. Secondly, the stand of the respondents results in an artificial truncation of service which has no rational nexus with the object of the MACP Scheme. The MACP Scheme is intended to alleviate stagnation and grant financial progression on the basis of length of service. Excluding a part of Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR admittedly regular and continuous service defeats the very purpose of the Scheme and renders its application arbitrary. Thirdly, the respondents have not placed on record any specific statutory rule or binding executive instruction which mandates that 13 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 past service in such circumstances is to be ignored. In the absence of any such express provision, the exclusion of past service is clearly based on an erroneous and restrictive interpretation of the Scheme. Fourthly, the action of the respondents also suffers from the vice of discrimination. The applicant has specifically pleaded that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit of MACP by counting their past service, and the respondents have not effectively controverted the said assertion. Such inconsistent application of the Scheme is impermissible in law.
17. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. vs. State of U.P., 1986 (1) SCC 637 and Surinder Singh vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, 1986 (1) SCC 639 has held that service benefits cannot be denied on artificial or technical distinctions where employees are similarly situated, and that RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR continuity of service must be given due recognition.
Similarly, in R.D. Gupta vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1987 (4) SCC 505 and Bhagwan Dass & Ors. vs. State of Haryana 1987 (4) SCC 634, it has been held that arbitrary denial of service benefits in the presence 14 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 of continuous service is violative of Article 14. In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) ATLT SC 214, it has been reiterated that classification in service matters must be founded on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The exclusion of the applicant‟s past service fails this test. The principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness has further been emphasized in State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 748. Further, in Maya Devi vs. Raj Kumari Batra (2010) 9 SCC 486, it has been held that benefits arising out of service conditions must be extended in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. In Union of India vs. Raj Pal SLP (C) No. CC-7467/2013 dated 15.04.2013, it has been observed that past service cannot be ignored where the governing framework permits its consideration. In Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Grade-I DASS Officers' Association & Ors., (2014) 13 SCC Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR 296, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has emphasized that service jurisprudence must be interpreted in a manner that advances fairness and avoids unjust exclusion.
15Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016
18. Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that the stand taken by the respondents is based on a hyper-technical and restrictive interpretation which cannot be sustained. The applicant‟s past service as Postal Assistant forms an integral part of his continuous government service and is liable to be counted for the purpose of MACP.
19. Insofar as the objection regarding limitation is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected. The denial of MACP benefits has recurring financial consequences and gives rise to a continuing cause of action. The applicant has also been diligently pursuing the matter through representations and by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, the OA cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
20. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR to count the entire past regular service rendered by the applicant from 17.10.1983 for the purpose of grant of financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme and to grant the benefit of 3rd MACP to the applicant w.e.f. 17.10.2013 on completion of 30 years 16 Item No.35 (C-V) O.A. No.4270/2016 of service. The respondents shall accordingly re-fix the pay of the applicant and extend all consequential benefits. The arrears arising therefrom shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate applicable to GPF from the date they became due till the date of actual payment.
21. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
„rk‟
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR