CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OC.UAT.NToA.C 2K6 B0E/N00C2H7, C5U oTf T2A0C2K0 RCOesReArvMe:d on 07.05.2025 Pronounced on 08.05.2025 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Radhakrushna Sahoo, aged about 60 years, S/o. Late Padma Charan Sahoo, a permanent resident of Vill: Rainlo, Po- Nuapada, Dist: Kendrapara, Ex- ASP (HQ), Keonjhar Division, Keonjhargarh-

758001.(Group-B).

……Applicant VERSUS

1. Union of India represented through its Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda-751001.

3. Post Master General, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur. 4. The superintendent of Post Offices, Keonjhar Division, Keonjhar-758001.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohaty, Counsel For the respondents : Mr. S.K.Pradhan, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the pleadings made in the OA, counter, rejoinder and documents filed in support thereof, including the order of the CAT, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in OA 534/2012 disposed of on 26.07.2018 (Naresh Kumar Verma Vs UOI & Ors) relied on by the applicant.

2. The applicant has filed this OA inter alia stating that as per the MACP Scheme, on completion of 30 years of regular service, he was rd entitled to 3 financial upgradation w.e.f. 23.11.2013 but, till his retirement on 29.02.2020, he was not granted such benefits and has rd sought direction in this OA to the respondents to grant him 3 financial upgradation along with arrear w.e.f. 23.11.2013.

3. The respondents in their counter have admitted that the rd applicant was due for the 3 financial upgradation on 23.11.2013.

rd However, the grounds stated, for which he was not granted the 3 MACP, are that in terms of the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009 (R/2) grant of financial upgradation shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion. It is further provided that such cases shall therefore be regulated under the provision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and instruction issued thereunder. In the case of the applicant, before rd the 3 MACP became due to him on 23.11.2013, he was proceeded departmentally under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 15.05.2013. While the matter stood thus, he was placed under suspension from 06.02.2014 to 28.02.2014 and criminal case was instituted against him before the Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar. The period of his suspension has not been regularized due to pendency of criminal case. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide memorandum dated 15.05.2013 culminated in imposing the punishment of recovery vide order dated 12.01.2015. Thereafter, three departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 26.08.2015, 14.06.2016 and 18.12.2018. The applicant retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation in the afternoon of 29.02.2020.

4. In the foregoing facts noted above and reading the various conditions stipulated in the MACP Scheme, we find no illegality or irregularity in the decision making process of not granting the rd applicant the 3 financial upgradation under the MACP. We have also examined the case in hand with reference to the facts of the case of Naresh Kumar Verma (supra) relied on by the applicant and find that the said case has no application because the applicant therein was rd denied the 3 MACP due to imposition of punishment of ‘Censure” and, therefore, taking into consideration the date of initiation of proceedings, imposition of punishment of “Censure” etc., this rd Tribunal directed to grant him the benefits under 3 MACP, whereas the facts of the present case is totally different and distinct to the case relied on by the applicant. Hence, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the said case is no application to the present case.

5. In