The decision in the case of
18M.V.Mohanan Nair (supra) has been followed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sharma
(supra), as well as in the case of Sudheesh Kumar
(supra).
In the case of R.K. Kulkarni (supra), the
fact situation is identical to the case on hand, wherein
the applicant therein was appointed on 25.10.1973 in
the Postal Department as a Departmental Staff
Vender; appointed as Postal Assistant on 25.03.1978
after clearing the departmental test; financial
upgradation under TBOP was extended on completion
of 16 years of service on 27.03.1994; and thereafter,
benefits under BCR scheme was extended on
completion of 26 years service. The Tribunal having
allowed her application by holding that she was
entitled to the benefits of MACP-III, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide its order passed in the said
case allowed the writ petition holding that the
9
W.P.No.(C)4131/2014, D.D. 05.08.2014
16
applicant therein was not entitled to the MACP-III
benefits. In the said decision, it was held that the
appointment of the applicant therein to the post of
Postal Assistant based on the LDCE cannot be
considered as a case of direct recruitment, but as a
case of promotion.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and Others vs. Balbir Singh Turn
and another10 had held that the Assured Career
Progression Scheme (ACPS) which was earlier in force
was not an allowance, but part of pay.
The decision in the case of
18M.V.Mohanan Nair (supra) has been followed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sharma
(supra), as well as in the case of Sudheesh Kumar
(supra).
The decision in the case of
18M.V.Mohanan Nair (supra) has been followed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sharma
(supra), as well as in the case of Sudheesh Kumar
(supra).