CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Thursday, this the 1^st day of January, 2026.

CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER C. Sarasamma, W/o. G. Raghavan Pillai, Aged 71 years, Retired Postal Assistant, Kottarakkara Head Post Office, Residing at Plavila Veedu, Cheppara – 691 520. -Applicant [ By Advocate : Mr. Vineeth Komalachandran]

V e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Post, Government of India, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum – 695 033.

3. Director Postal Accounts, O/o. G.P.O Building, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum – 695 033.

4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kollam Postal Division, Kollam – 691 001. -Respondents [By Advocate : Mr. K.C. Muraleedharan]

The Original Application having been heard on 01.01.2026, the Tribunal on the same day delivered the following:

O R D E R (Oral):-

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant had started her career as GDS BPM on 21.01.1971, later, through Departmental Competitive Examination, she was posted as Postal Assistant with effect from 25.08.1981 and retired from service as such on 30.06.2008. The grievance of the applicant is that she had put in more than 20 years of regular service as on 01.01.2006, but was not granted 2^nd MACP. Though she enjoyed TBOP and obtained promotion as Postal Assistant, she was denied the benefit of 2^nd MACP unlawfully. She claims that she is entitled to get the benefits of Annexure-A1 MACP scheme with effect from 01.01.2006. Thus she has approached this Tribunal for a declaration that she is entitled to get the benefit of Annexure-A1 as interpreted in Annexure- A2 judgment by granting her financial upgradation with effect from 18.04.2007, the date on which she had completed 20 years of service, to direct the respondents to grant her 2^nd MACP on completion of 10 years of regular service in the light of Annexure-A2 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. The respondents filed reply statement denying the claim of the applicant.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

4. The applicant had retired from service on superannuation on

30.06.2008. By virtue of Annexure-A1 OM dated 19.05.2009 the MACP scheme was made operational from 01.09.2008. However, basing on the interpretation made in Annexure-A2 judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Balbir Singh Turn and another [(2018) 11 SCC 99] she wanted the scheme effected from from 01.01.2006 and in that case she will get the benefit of the 2^nd MACP.

5. It is true that in Annexure-A2 the Apex Court had affirmed the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal and held that benefit of MACP is payable from 01.01.2006. However, we have come across a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. R.K.Sharma and others [AIR 2021 SC 2873], where basing on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. M.V.Mohanan Nair [(2020) 5 SCC 421], a different stand has been taken by the Supreme Court. In R.K.Sharma, quoted supra, it is specifically held that MACP being a matter of Government policy taken pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay Commission, the employees are not entitled to seek implementation with effect from 01.01.2006. In Mohanan Nair, quoted supra, even though Balbir Singh Turn was not specifically referred, there is an implied overruling of the decision, which has been followed in R.K.Sharma.

6. In the result, the applicant is not justified in claiming the benefit of MACP from 18.04.2007 or prior to 01.09.2008.

7. The Original Application is dismissed. No costs.

(Dated, this the 1^st day of January, 2026)

V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER rkr List of Annexures in OA/180/00088/2019 Annexure A1: A true copy of MACP Scheme issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India dated 09.05.2009.

Annexure A2: A true copy of the Judgment by t