CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00470 of 2018 Dated, this 11th day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Brij Lal, aged about 59 years, son of Late Shri Mangaru, Resident of

202/1, Hanumantpuram, Raebareily.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava holding brief for Shri Praveen Kumar VERSUS

1. Union of India, thorough the Chief Post Master General, UP Region, Lucknow.

2. The Post Master General, UP Circle, Lucknow.

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Raebareily Division, Raebareily.

…..Respondent By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“1. To quash impugned order dated 31.05.2018 to the extent it excludes the name of the applicant, contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA, with all consequential benefits.

2. To grant the benefits of 3^rd MACP and revise the pay with effect from June 2018.

3. To pay the arrears as a result of revision of pay along with interest@

12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment with all consequential benefits.

4. Any other relief, which this Hon‟ble may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

5. Cost of the present case.”

2. The applicant has been working as Postal Assistant under the respondents since 14.06.1988 and he completed 30 years of service in the month of June, 2018. Aggrieved at not having been granted 3^rd financial upgradation under MACP vide order dated 31.05.2018, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s contention is that the respondents have ignored the fact that the benchmark grading in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for financial upgradation under MACP was raised from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’ with effect from 25.07.2016, i.e., date of acceptance of report of the 7th Central Pay Commission by Government of India, as stipulated in the office memorandum (OM) dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT); however, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has wrongly rejected grant of 3^rd MACP to him by considering his APARs with ‘Good’ grading prior to 25.07.2016 as below benchmark.

4. Per contra, the respondents contend that the applicant’s APAR grading for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17 (four years) was ‘Good’ and the APAR grading for 2017-18 was ‘Very Good’ and, accordingly, the DPC did not find his case fit for financial upgradation as he did not have the required ‘Very Good’ grading in terms of Ministry of Communication’s clarification dated 02.07.2018.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has cited instructions dated 13.03.2019 issued by the Department of Posts.

6. We have heard both the parties.

7.1 The issue for our consideration is whether the applicant’s APARs prior to 25.07.2016 with ‘Good’ grading can be considered as meeting the benchmark for grant of 3rd MACP to him or not.

7.2 It is noted that the clarification dated 02.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Communication relied on by the respondents has been further clarified by the Department of Posts vide their instructions dated 13.03.2019 extracted below:

“Sub: Clarification on applicability of “Very Good” benchmark for financial upgradation under MACPS and consideration of “Good” benchmark for the previous years before 25.07.2016.

This office is in receipt of large number of references consequent upon the clarification issued vide DG Posts letter of even number dated 02.07.2018 on the above mentioned subject, regarding allowing opportunity of making representation against „good‟ benchmark and relaxation of benchmark for MACPS.

2. In this context, it is reiterated that opportunity of making representation against APAR which are post 2009 cannot be given as it is