The court ruled that financial upgradation under the MACP scheme is not applicable to employees who have received maximum allowed promotions through departmental examinations.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present OA filed under Section – 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. To quash the impugned orders dated 03/07.11.2017, 12.2.2016, 8.2.2016, 27.12.2013 & 4.7.2013 passed by the respondents (Annexures A-1 to A-5 respectively);

2. To direct the respondents to grant the benefits of 2nd financial up-gradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme to the Applicant w.e.f. 13.7.2011 i.e, the date on which he completed 20 years of satisfactory service in the Postal Assistant cadre;

3. To grant all consequential benefits of revision of pay w.e.f. 13.7.2011 and the consequent revision of his pension and other retiral dues and payment of arrears of pay & allowances from 13.7.2011 accruing on account of such revision of pay upto the date of his retirement i.e, 30.9.2013 and the arrears of his pension and other retiral dues w.e.f. 1.10.2013;

4. To award interest on the aforesaid arrears of pay & allowances and on arrears of Pension & other retiral dues @ 12% p.a. or at such other rate as may be deemed appropriate w.e.f. the date the same became due upto the date of their actual payments;

5. To award the Costs of this application.

6. To pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant joined the postal services as a Mailman (Gr. 'D') on 22.05.1982. Through his diligence and hard work, he successfully cleared departmental examinations, which led to his promotion to Postman and subsequently to Postal Assistant.

2.2. During his illustrious career, the applicant was granted financial upgradations under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) scheme and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme. However, when he requested further financial upgradation under the MACP scheme, the respondents, in an unjust manner, denied his request on the reasoning that the applicant had already earned three promotions, and therefore, was not entitled to any further financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. The applicant, being aggrieved by this decision, submitted several representations and appeals, but to his dismay, his case was not considered.

2.3. Meanwhile, the issue of MACP benefits was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. D. Sivakumar (SLP No. 4848/2016). The Apex court held that the MACP scheme applies to all similarly placed employees, thereby paving the way for the applicant's claim. However, in an unjust turn of events, the applicant's representation was rejected by the respondents without even considering the merits of his case. This rejection was based on the ground that the respondents had not received any directions or instructions from the Circle Office or the Directorate on the subject matter.

2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is because of the above narrated circumstances that the applicant has approached this Tribunal, seeking the afore- quoted relief, which has been denied to him by the respondents in an arbitrary and unjust manner.

3. Supporting the case of the applicants, learned counsel for the applicants urged the following grounds:

3.1. Appointment as Postal Assistant should be treated as direct recruitment, not promotion : The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant’s appointment as Postal Assistant on 23.06.1991 should be treated as a direct recruitment and not as a promotion. This is because the applicant had to participate in a merit-based selection process and pass a limited departmental competitive examination to get appointed as a Postal Assistant. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in D. Sivakumar case (supra) which, according to learned counsel for the applicant, has held that such appointments are to be tre