Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16250
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Member (J), Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Member (A)
Chandu Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 345/2023
Selection/appointment to the post of Postal Assistant through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) is a'promotion' as per the applicable Recruitment Rules, not 'direct recruitment', and thus cannot be ignored for counting financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S. 19 - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Promotion vs Direct Recruitment - Selection to the post of Postal Assistant through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) constitutes promotion - Not entitled to treat LDCE appointment as direct recruitment for MACP benefits. (Paras 17, 18, 22)
(B) Service Law - Determination of promotional hierarchy - Recruitment Rules explicitly classify LDCE as a mode of promotion - Judiciary must adhere to specific provisions within government recruitment regulations. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, originally appointed as Group 'D' employees, were promoted to the post of Postal Assistant through the LDCE. They sought the benefit of the 3rd MACP, arguing that their induction into the Postal Assistant cadre should be treated as direct recruitment rather than a promotion, drawing support from favorable rulings in other forums.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal examined the 1971 Recruitment Rules for Postal/Sorting Assistants, which classify the LDCE path as a promotional method. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicants were not entitled to the requested MACP benefits, as their initial promotion had already been accounted for.
Issues: Whether appointment to the post of Postal Assistant via LDCE should be categorized as direct recruitment or promotion for the purpose of computing financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The express language of the governing Recruitment Rules defines the LDCE selection process as a promotion; therefore, the career progression steps must be counted accordingly, precluding the classification of such service as direct entry.
Result: Original Applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of macp scheme and applicant's claim for upgradation based on past service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. parties argument regarding status of selection through limited departmental competitive examination (ldce). (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court establishes that ldce selection is a promotion based on recruitment rules and judicial precedents. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
O R D E R
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. By way of the above captioned 06 Original Applications filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following relief:-
“To issue directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of MACP III on the date applicant completed 30 years continuous service with all consequential benefits like re-fixation of pay/pension besides payment of arrears on account of revised pay/pension from 06.10.2008, the date he became entitled thereto in accordance with the MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009.”
Since the relief claimed, the facts, the grounds and the legal issues contained in the aforesaid OAs are common, therefore, these Original Applications are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of learned counsels for both sides. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Original Application No. 345/2023 titled Chandu Ram Vs. Union of India and Others.
2. The summarized facts of the case (as taken from OA No. 345/2023) are that the applicant entered the service of the respondent Department as Group 'D" employee through competitive examination. He was selected as Assistant Postal through LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Exam.).
3. The Government of India introduced (Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme for the employees of Central Government. The Scheme allowed two financial up gradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years service respectively. Even before introduction of the ACP scheme, the Department of Posts provided One Time Bound Promotion (called OTBP on completion of 16 years of service in the basic grade. The department further introduced Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) benefit after completion of 26 years of service in the basis grade including time spent in higher grades/OTBP.
4. The Sixth CPC recommended new scheme called "Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme" (MACP). The Government accepted the same with some modifications to grant three financial up gradations for the Central Government employees under this revised Scheme at intervals of 10,20 and 30 years of continuous regular service and issued orders vide Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) OM No. 35034/3/2008-Est. (D) dated 19.05.2009. This Scheme is in supersession of the previous ACP Scheme and clarifications issued there under. The Scheme is applicable to all regularly appointed Group "A", "B, and "C" Central Government Civilian Employees except officers of the Organized Group "A" Service. The status of Group D employees ceased and they were treated C multi-skilled as Group employees on their completion of prescribed training. With the introduction of MACP Scheme OTBP /BCR orders turned obsolete. The MACP Scheme became operational w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and financial up gradations as provisions of the earlier ACP Scheme of per the August, 1999 would be granted till 31.08.2008.
5. One D. Sivakumar filed OA No. 1088/2011 before the Madras Bench of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal for grant of financial benefits under the MACP Scheme by treating his entry into service from the date of direct recruitment and treating his elevation to the post of Postal Assistant not a promotion. His OA was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.03.2013. The Union of India filed a Writ Petition No. 30629 of 2014, challenging the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide its order dated 04.02.2015 (Annex
