Om Prakash Sharma vs D/o Post

1
O.A. No.171/2017


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR


ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 171/2017


Order Reserved on: 06.10.2026

DATE OF ORDER : 23.10.2026
CORAM

HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Om Prakash Sharma son of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, aged
about 56 years, resident of Gandhi Nagar Colony, Behind Jain
Mandir, Sewar Road, Bharatpur and presently working as
Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Bharatpur Postal
Sub Division, Bharatpur.
....Applicant

Shri C.B. Sharma, counsel for the Applicant.

VERSUS

1. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of
India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications
and Information Technology, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-
302007.
3. Director Postal Services (Head Quarter) Office of Chief
Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-302007.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bharatpur Postal
Division, Bharatpur-321001.

.... Respondents

Shri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for the Respondents.


NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT

2
O.A. No.171/2017


ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

Through the present Original Application, the Applicant had
sought to challenge the letter dated 15.03.2017 issued by the
Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Rajasthan Circle Jaipur, i.e.
Respondent No.2 – vide which the request of the Applicant to be
allowed the benefit of the third financial up-gradation under MACP
after completion of 30 years of qualifying service w.e.f.
10/13.02.2013, had been rejected.

2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record, the relevant
matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant
was initially appointed as Sorting Assistant (SA) in the
Respondent Department of Posts under Respondent No.2 on
10.02.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Post
Offices on 12.07.1996 after passing the required departmental
examination. On completion of 24 years of service, the Applicant
was granted financial up-gradation under the Assured Career
Progression (ACP) Scheme w.e.f. 10.02.2007; and was also later
promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Posts (ASP)
substantively in 2009. Meanwhile, the MACP Scheme had been
introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2008, with provisions for considering and
allowing financial up-gradations after completion of 10, 20 and 30
years of service. Before completing 30 years of continuous regular
service, the Applicant was placed under suspension on
27.04.2012 that had continued till 13.11.2012. Subsequently, a
Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013 was issued under Rule-14 of the
Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules,
1965 [the CCS (CCA) Rules-1965] to the Applicant by the Director
Postal Services (HQ), Office of CPMG Rajasthan Circle, i.e.
Respondent No.3. Eventually, the said disciplinary proceedings
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
came to be concluded by awarding the punishment of reduction of

3
O.A. No.171/2017


pay of the Applicant by one stage for a period of one year,
without cumulative effect, vide order dated 16.03.2016 of the
Respondent No.3, which remained in effect from 16.03.2016 till
16.03.2017. Eventually, vide the Memo dated 01.09.2016 of the
Superintendent of Post Offices, Bharatpur Postal Division (i.e.
Respondent No.4) the Applicant was allowed the third financial
up-gradation under the MACP w.e.f. 17.03.2017, i.e. w.e.f. from
the date after the expiry of the effect of the punishment imposed
upon him as aforesaid ; and was subject further inter alia to the
condition that no vigilance/disciplinary case was pending/current
against him on the date of upgradation.

The Applicant had submitted a representation dated 07.10.2016
to Respondent No.2 seeking that he be allowed the third financial
up-gradation under MACP w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 when he had
completed 30 years of regular and continuous service – since on
that date, he was neither under suspension nor was served any
charge memo before that. The said representation had been
disposed of by the impugned letter dated 15.03.2017 of the office
of Respondent No.2, whereby it was conveyed that his
representation/appeal dated 07.10.2016 against the Order dated
01.09.2016 of Respondent No.4 had been dismissed by the
competent authority and third financial up-gradation for him
under MACP was to be allowed w.e.f. 17.03.2017 only.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant had filed the present
O.A. seeking the substantive relief inter alia – that the
Respondents be directed to consider benefits of third financial
upgradation to the Applicant w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 instead of
17.03.2017 by modifying the impugned memo dated 01.09.2016
and by quashing the impugned letter dated 15.03.2017 with all
consequential benefits including due fixation with difference of
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
pay & allowances ; and that the Respondents be further directed

4
O.A. No.171/2017


to act as per provisions as regards to DPC and further provisions
of the MACP scheme for granting benefits to the Applicant to
consider his case for on the basis of position of 2012/2013, with
all consequential benefits.

4. It was the case of the Applicant that on 10/13.02.2013 the
date when he had completed 30 years of qualifying service, and
prior to issuance of charge memo dated 15.02.2013 there was
nothing adverse against the Applicant and as such he was entitled
to be provided the benefit of third up-gradation under the MACP
Scheme w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 instead of 17.03.2017 as had been
provided vide the Memo dated 01.09.2016 of Respondent No.4.

It had further been submitted that the punishment order dated
16.03.2016 itself had in conclusion ordered to treat his
suspension period as admissible leave and to count that as
qualifying service for promotion and retirement benefits. Without
reliance upon any extant statutory provisions/guidelines relating
to grant of benefits of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme,
the Applicant had claimed that such regularization of the period of
his suspension from 27.04.2012 to 14.11.2012 was tantamount
to counting that period also towards the grant of third financial
up-gradation under the MACP Scheme. Further, it had also been
contended that the Applicant could not be deprived of such
benefits due to him from 10/13.02.2013 on the basis of
subsequent issuance of charge memo dated 15.02.2013 and the
punishment order dated 16.03.2016. However, the statutory
provisions in support of those averments had not been presented.

5. Vide their reply, the Respondents had admitted only to the
matters of facts as on record, inter alia – that the Applicant was
initially appointed as SA under Respondent No.2 on 10.02.1983 ;
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
that thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Post Offices on

5
O.A. No.171/2017


12.07.1996, was granted financial up-gradation under the ACP
Scheme w.e.f. 10.02.2007 on completion of 24 years of service
and was later promoted substantively in 2009 ; that the Applicant
was placed under suspension on 27.04.2012 that had continued
till 13.11.2012 ; that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
the Applicant had yet remained under contemplation/
consideration and subsequently, a Charge Memo dated
15.02.2013 was issued under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules-
1965 to the Applicant by the Respondent No.3 ; and that the said
disciplinary proceedings came to be concluded by awarding the
punishment of reduction of pay of the Applicant by one stage for a
period of one year, without cumulative effect, vide order dated
16.03.2016 of Respondent No.3, which remained in effect from
16.03.2016 till 16.03.2017.

It had also been admitted inter alia – that eventually, vide the
Memo dated 01.09.2016 of the Respondent No.4, the Applicant
was allowed the third financial up-gradation under the MACP
w.e.f. 17.03.2017, i.e. after the expiry of the effect of the
punishment imposed upon him as aforesaid ; that the Applicant
had submitted a representation dated 07.10.2016 to Respondent
No.2 seeking that he be allowed the third financial up-gradation
under MACP w.e.f. 10/13.02.2013 when he had completed 30
years of regular and continuous service and he was neither under
suspension nor was served any charge memo ; and that the said
representation had been disposed of by the impugned letter dated
15.03.2017 of the office of Respondent No.2, whereby it was
conveyed that his representation/appeal dated 07.10.2016
against the Order dated 01.09.2016 of Respondent No.4 had been
dismissed by the competent authority and third financial up-
gradation for him under MACP was to be allowed w.e.f.
17.03.2017 only.
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT

6
O.A. No.171/2017


6. Per contra, it had been submitted by the Respondents that
though the Applicant had completed his 30 years of service on
13.02.2013 but third MACP was not allowed to the Applicant
w.e.f. 13.02.2013 because the Applicant while working as
ASP(HQ), Jaipur (Mfl.) Division remained suspended from
27.04.2012 to 14.11.2012 in a case of demanding Rs. one lakh as
illegal gratification from one Om Prakash Sharma, the then CDS
Branch Post-Master (BPM), Jopara under account with Bhandarej
Sub-Post Office (SO) on 07.03.2011 for arranging/managing his
promotion in Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) Cadre. Allegedly further,
the Applicant had later accepted Rs.95000/- as illegal gratification
on 08.03.2011 for the aforesaid motive. In this case, vide the
charge-Memo dated 15.03.2017, the Applicant was charged under
Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules-1965. The related disciplinary
proceedings came to be concluded with a penalty of reduction of
one stage for one year without cumulative effect on 16.03.2016.
As such, the third upgradation under MACP Scheme was not
allowed to the Applicant during the pendency of the disciplinary
action/punishment ; but was allowed after expiry of punishment
date i.e. 16.03.2017, vide the Office Memo dated 01.09.2016.

7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties on
record. The arguments of the learned Counsels for the Applicant
and for the Respondents had also been heard.

8. It would emerge from the same that the case of the
Applicant had been essentially based on the claim that once he
had completed 30 years of regular service on 13.03.2013 and
there was no suspension or ongoing disciplinary proceeding
against him on that day, he should have been allowed the benefit
of third financial upgradation w.e.f. 13.03.2013 itself. Per contra,
it had been submitted on part of the Respondents that it was not
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
correct that there had been nothing against the Applicant as on

7
O.A. No.171/2017


13.03.2013 – because the information related to the Applicant’s
alleged misconduct of demanding and accepting illegal
gratification on 07/08.03.2011 from the then CDS BPM of Jopara
(in account with Bhandarej SO) for arranging/managing his
promotion in MTS cadre was very much available with the
Respondents and the initiation of disciplinary action was
contemplated/under process against the Applicant during the
relevant period. Eventually, the charge-Memo dated 15.03.2013
came to be issued in consequence of the same.

9. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the settled
position in law – that statutory rules should prevail and must be
strictly adhered to and the principles of estoppel and
acquiescence cannot apply over and above the eligibility condition
having statutory force laid down by statutory rules ; that there
can be no estoppel against law and if the law requires something
to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that
manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have
no existence in the eye of the law. Something that is illegal
cannot convert itself into something legal merely by the act of a
third person.

Thus, relevantly for the present case, the grant of the benefit of
rd
3 financial upgradation had to be considered as per the extant
guidelines related to MACP and their clarifications as issued from
time to time by the Department of Personnel & Training
(D.oP.&T.) of the Government of India. While 30 years of regular
service was one of the necessary conditions for being considered
eligible for the grant of third financial upgradation, it was not
shown that the same would necessarily be sufficient by itself –
since there could be other prescribed conditions to be fulfilled,
such as those pertaining to vigilance clearance, performance
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
benchmarks etc.

8
O.A. No.171/2017



10. Also relevantly, it was not contested before us that the
Applicant had completed 30 years of regular service on
13.03.2013 ; and that he had been allowed only two financial
upgradations/promotions by then. However, the proceedings of
the Screening Committee conducted in July-2012 or thereafter to
consider the cases maturing during October-2012 to March-2013
were not before us ; due to which it was not clear whether the
case of the Applicant had come up at that meeting and if so, how
that had been dealt with.

The information presented by the parties was largely in terms of
blank averments and thus totally inadequate for determination of
the issue at the centre of the present O.A., viz. whether the
Applicant was eligible to be considered for grant of the benefit of
third financial upgradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 13.03.2013
or otherwise, as per the extant statutory provisions/guidelines.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Tribunal was
constrained from deciding the issue vide the present O.A. either
way. Hence, it is directed that the case of the Applicant in the
present O.A. for grant of the third financial upgradation upon
completion of 30 years of regular service on 13.03.2013 be
reconsidered by the Respondents, by convening a special review
meeting of the Screening Committee with reference to the
meeting held firstly in July-2012 or after that date, as per the
extant provisions for the grant of such benefit under MACP
Scheme.

It is further directed that the aforesaid direction is not tantamount
to grant of the third financial upgradation to the Applicant w.e.f.
13.03.2013, but for due consideration and appropriate
NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT
recommendation thereafter in light of the extant statutory

9
O.A. No.171/2017


provisions/guidelines related to MACP. The exact such provisions
relied upon and the recommendations reached as per those
provisions by the Screening Committee should be spelt out in the
minutes of the aforesaid special review meeting of the Screening
Committee. This exercise shall be completed within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
Order by the Respondents.

12. It is further directed that the competent authority for grant
of financial upgradations under the MACP shall thereafter consider
the recommendation of the aforesaid special review meeting of
the Screening Committee for the Applicant’s case duly ; and pass
an appropriately detailed and speaking Order, with specific
reference to the extant provisions, regarding the admissibility or
otherwise of the benefit of the third financial upgradation under
MACPS w.e.f. 13.03.2013 to the present Applicant. Such Order of
the competent authority shall be issued within a period of eight
weeks further from the date of the recommendation made by the
special review meeting of the Screening Committee as aforesaid.
The Order shall also specifically mention whether the impugned
Order dated 01.09.2016 of the Respondent No.4 would continue
to hold or whether that would be modified – and if so, in what
manner and to what extent.

13. Therefore, the present O.A. is disposed of with the
observations and directions as foregoing. No order as to costs.


( LOK RANJAN ) (RANJANA SHAHI)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER



Kumawat

NATHU LAL
KUMAWAT
Uploaded by me
2026.10.23
16:28:16+05'30'
NATHU
LAL
KUMAWAT