Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Kapoor Singh – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11957/2023 | CM APPL. 46896/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Subhash Tanwar, Sandeep Mishra, Mohit Kumar Tomar, Mayank Sehrawat
For the Respondents: Yogesh Sharma, Sonika Piyush Sharma
Appointment as Postman is considered direct recruitment, thereby entitling the employee to financial upgradation under the MACP scheme, as established by the Supreme Court of India.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - MACP Scheme - Financial Upgradation - Appointment as Postman - Whether appointment as Postman constitutes direct recruitment or promotion - Held: Appointment as Postman is by way of direct recruitment. (Para 3)
(B) Judicial Precedent - Binding Nature - Issue covered by Supreme Court - Where the Supreme Court has already decided the identical issue in a connected matter, the High Court is bound to follow the same and dismiss the petition. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the appointment as Postman should be construed as direct recruitment or promotion for the purpose of granting the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP.
O R D E R
1. This petition lays a challenge to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 31.01.2023 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein by stating as under:-
“4. Since there is a categorical finding on the issue involved, there is no cause for us to take a divergent view. In the light of the facts and the discussion narrated above, this Original Application is allowed. The orders dated 18.07.2019 and dated 25.06.2019 are quashed and set aside. The applicants are held to be entitled for 3rd financial upgradation, on completion of 30 years of service, in accordance with the provisions contained in the instructions governing MACP. Accordingly, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to issue necessary orders in this regard and release the benefits forthwith, certainly not later than a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The arrears too shall be released, albeit without interest, during this period of 12 weeks. However, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the arrears shall be restricted to only a period of three years preceding the date of filing this Original Application.
5. The OA stands allowed against the background of these directions.
6. Any associated MA shall also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. No order as to costs.”
2. The learned counsel for the respondent state that an identical issue was the subject matter of a civil appeal and SLPs before the Supreme Court, which include Civil Appeal no. 4432/2019 and SLP(C) nos. 11997/2019, 26561/2019, 24722/2019, 23649/2019, 611/2020, 1123/2022, 14072/2022, 23334/2022, 3215/2025, 18660/2025, 18655/2025, 27356/2025, 38239/2025 and 3701-3703/2026 wherein the Supreme Court has dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 4432/2019, Union of India & Ors. v. E Sreeramulu.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners though seeks some time to look into this aspect and take instructions, we are of the view that the same may not be necessary since the Civil Appeal No. 4432/2019 has been dismissed, more so, there is no denial to the fact that the said appeal and the connected SLPs relate to the same issue i.e., whether the appointment as Postman should be construed as direct recruitment or promotion. The conclusion drawn is that the appointment as Postman is by way of a direct recruitment. It is also necessary to state here that on 12.09.2023, we had passed the following order in the present writ petition:-
“1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that issue which falls for decision in this petition is also pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 26561/2019. In fact, certain matters including W.P.(C) 7504/2013 titled as Laxmi Dutt Kaushik v. Union of India and Ors. and connected petitions have been directed to be adjourned sine die.
2. Issue notice to the respondent returnable on March 21, 2024.
3. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay of the impugned Order dated January 31, 2023 passed in O.A. No. 116/2021.”
4. The orders as handed over to us by learned counsel for the respondent would also show that SLP(C) no. 26561/19 has also been decided by the Supreme Court whereby the Supreme Court has allowed the said appeal by stating in the order dated 24.02.2026 as under:-
“1) Leave granted.
2) In consequence of the aforesaid order of dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 2019 and connected matters, the impugned orders of the respective High Courts stand set aside. Consequently, these appeals stand allowed with direction to the respondents to comply with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
5. If that be so, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners being covered by the orders of the Supreme Court, the same is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
6. As the
