KRISHANA KUMAR SAXENA vs POST UP CIRCLE
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
OA No. 330/441 of 2023
ESERVED ON
(R 15.10.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
th
Pronounced on 28 day of October, 2026
Original Application No. 330/441 of 2023
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Krishna Kumar Saxena, Ex-Dak Sahayak, a/a 65 years, R/o Mohalla
Baktawar Lal behind old Post Office Beesalpur Piliphit
....Applicant
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
By Advocate: Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary of Ministry of Communication &
IT Department of Posts Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
2. The Chief Post Master General Uttar Pradesh Circle, Lucknow
3. The Post Master General Bareilly Region, Bareilly 243001
4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Bareilly Division, Bareilly
5. The Account Officer Pension of Office of GM (Finance) Aliganj Sector
D, Lucknow …… Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):
Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents
at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. " To set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 passed by
respondent-3 and order dated 20.09.2022 passed by
respondent-4.
II. Issue an order or direction to the respondents to grant the
benefits of all three MACP as per policy of MACP 2009 and in
the compliance of order dated 10.08.2015 of the Rajasthan
High Court passed in Writ Petition No.11336/2012 and fixt his
pension accordance with and pay him its arrears and other
consequential benefits which and when becomes due and
further pay in future.
III. Issue an order or direction which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
3. The brief facts as apparent from the record of Original
Application are that the applicant was initially appointed as GDS on
Page 1 of 7
OA No. 330/441 of 2023
07.02.1979 under the respondents. He was subsequently appointed as
Postman on 25.10.1991 after qualifying in the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination. Thereafter, he was appointed as Postal Assistant
on 01.07.1996 after qualifying in the Lower Grade Official Examination
(hereinafter referred as LGO Examination). The applicant was granted the
benefits of the 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme
(hereinafter referred to as the “MACP Scheme”) with effect from 01.09.2008.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Subsequently, he retired from service on 31.01.2017. Thereafter, he
submitted a representation to the respondents seeking the benefits of the 3rd
MACP, which was rejected vide order dated 10.02.2022. The said order was
communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 20.09.2022. Hence, the
present Original Application has been filed challenging the order dated
10.02.2022 and the consequential communication dated 20.09.2022.
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the
respondents on 11.04.2025, wherein it has been stated that the applicant
was initially appointed as GDS on 07.02.1979. Thereafter, he appeared in
the Postman Examination and, having been declared successful, joined the
post of Postman on 06.09.1991. Subsequently, he appeared in the LGO
Examination and, upon being declared successful, joined the post of Postal
Assistant on 01.07.1996 after completing the requisite training.
4.1 After the introduction of the MACP Scheme, the applicant was
considered for the grant of the 1st and 2nd MACP benefits. However, he was
granted only the 2nd MACP benefit vide order dated 31.03.2010, as his
appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre from the Postman cadre through
the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination was treated as a
promotion, and consequently, he was not granted the benefit of the 1st
MACP. The benefit of the 2nd MACP was granted to the applicant with effect
from 01.09.2008 in the pay band of ₹5,200–20,200, with Grade Pay of
₹2,800.
Page 2 of 7
OA No. 330/441 of 2023
4.2 It is further stated in the counter affidavit that for grant of the
3rd MACP, the applicant was required to complete either 30 years of
qualifying service or 10 years of service in the same grade pay after the grant
of the last financial upgradation. Since the applicant joined the Postman
cadre on 06.09.1991 and retired in 2017, he had neither completed 30 years
of qualifying service nor rendered 10 years of service in the Grade Pay of
₹2,800 after the grant of the 2nd MACP. Instead, he had rendered only 8
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
years and 5 months of service in the said Grade Pay.
4.3 It has further been stated that the applicant would have become
eligible for the 3rd MACP with effect from 01.09.2018; however, he had
already retired on 31.01.2017. The respondents have also submitted that the
applicant's appointment to the post of Postal Assistant with effect from
01.07.1996, through the LDCE, was treated as his first financial upgradation,
as such an appointment through the LDCE falls under the promotion quota
and not the direct recruitment quota for the purpose of the MACP Scheme.
On these grounds, the respondents have contended that the present Original
Application is liable to be dismiss.
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on
24.06.2026 wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original
Application.
6. Mr. Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
applicant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the issue involved
in this Original Application regarding Postal Assistant through the LDCE was
not a promotion, but a direct entry appointment to the Postal Assistant Cadre
through a competitive examination and for the purpose of MACP, the
services should have been counted from the date of Postal Assistant Cadre,
has already been set at rest by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.4432/2019 in
case of Union of India Vs. E Sreeramulu vide its order dated 24.02.2026.
This Tribunal after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court
decided an identical matters vide its order dated 23.07.2026 passed in O.A.
Page 3 of 7
OA No. 330/441 of 2023
No.320/2021 and vide order dated 10.09.2026 in O.A. No.1493/2017 and as
such, this case may also be disposed of in view of the observations made in
O.A. No.320/2021 .
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant
and submitted that the applicant was rightly denied the benefit of the 3rd
MACP, as his appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre through the Limited
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) was treated as a promotion
and not as direct recruitment. The applicant had not completed the requisite
30 years of qualifying service or 10 years of service in the same Grade Pay
after the grant of the 2nd MACP before his retirement. Accordingly, the
impugned order was passed in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the MACP Scheme, and the present Original Application is liable to be
dismissed.
8. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned
counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
9. From perusal of the records, it appears that the principal issue
involved in the present Original Application is whether the applicant is entitled
to the benefit of the 3rd MACP by treating his appointment to the Postal
Assistant cadre through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
(LDCE) as a fresh entry into the cadre rather than as a promotion, and
whether the service rendered by him in the Postal Assistant cadre is liable to
be counted accordingly for the purpose of determining his eligibility under the
MACP Scheme.
10. The treatment of appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre
through the LDCE has been considered by the Supreme Court in Union of
India v. E. Sreeramulu, SLP (C) No. 4432/2019, vide order dated 24.02.2026.
The aforesaid issue has also been considered by this Tribunal in O.A. No.
320/2021, decided on 23.07.2026, and O.A. No. 1493/2017, decided on
10.09.2026. However, the applicability and effect of the aforesaid decisions
Page 4 of 7
OA No. 330/441 of 2023
have to be examined in the context of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, including the financial upgradation already granted to the
applicant vide order dated 31.03.2010, which remained unchallenged, and
the stage at which the applicant first raised his grievance. The relevant part
of the order dated 31.03.2010 is quoted as under:-
Department of Posts India
Office of the Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Bareilly Dn. Bareilly 243001
O:-B-1/28/MACP-I/Ch-I dated at Bareilly the 31.03.2010
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
In pursuance of DG, Posts New Delhi Communication No.I-
MACP/2009/PCC dated 18.09.2009, 24.09.2009 and 29.09.09 and
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances with effect from and Pensions
(DoPT OM No.5034/03/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009 and
Directorate’s Commission No./MACPs/20009/PCC dated 09.12.2009 &
23.12.2009, the Postmaster General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly has
approved the recommendations of screening Committee held at RO
Bareilly on 22.03.2010 vide letter RPB/STA/71/MACPs/General/2010
dated at Bareilly the 30.03.2010. The undersigned orders the Financial
upgradation of the following officials under MACP Scheme in the pay
Band 5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.2800/- with effect from the date
noted against their name:-
PART A
Sl
No.
Name &
Designation of
the officials
Community Date from
st
which 1
MACP is
recommended
Date from
which IInd
MACP is
recommended
Remarks
- - - - - -
2. Shri Krishna
Kumar
Saxena, PA
Pilibhit HO
OC --- 01.09.2008 Not entitled for
Ist MACP as
got promoted
in PA cadre
Postman
11. The applicant’s claim for the 3rd MACP cannot be determined
merely by examining whether his appointment to the Postal Assistant cadre
through the LDCE constitutes a promotion or a fresh entry into the cadre. His
entitlement must also be assessed with reference to the relevant provisions
of the MACP Scheme, the financial upgradations already granted to him, and
the qualifying service required for the next financial upgradation.
12. It is an admitted position that the applicant was initially
appointed as GDS on 07.02.1979 and subsequently joined the Postman
cadre in 1991. Thereafter, upon qualifying in the LGO Examination, he joined
the Postal Assistant cadre on 01.07.1996. Upon implementation of the MACP
Page 5 of 7
OA No. 330/441 of 2023
Scheme, the applicant was considered for financial upgradation, and vide
order dated 31.03.2010, he was granted the benefit of the 2nd MACP with
effect from 01.09.2008. However, the benefit of the 1st MACP was denied by
the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2010 on the ground that his appointment to
the Postal Assistant cadre through the LDCE was treated as a promotion.
The applicant accepted the aforesaid determination, his pay was fixed
accordingly, and he did not challenge the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2010
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
at the relevant point of time and in this original application also. He continued
in service under the said arrangement and ultimately retired on 31.01.2017.
13. It is further evident from the record that the applicant did not
raise any grievance regarding the treatment of his appointment through the
LDCE or the computation of his qualifying service for the purpose of financial
upgradation during his service tenure. It was only in the year 2021-22, after
his retirement, that he approached the respondents by submitting a
representation seeking the benefit of the 3rd MACP. The said representation
was rejected vide order dated 10.02.2022, which was communicated to him
vide letter dated 20.09.2022, giving rise to the present Original Application.
Admittedly, the applicant accepted the grant of the 2nd MACP and the denial
of the 1st MACP under the order dated 31.03.2010, without challenging the
same during his service tenure or in this original application. This is a
relevant circumstance. The applicant cannot, as a matter of course, seek to
reopen an earlier determination.
14. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant has not completed
the requisite ten years of regular service from the date of grant of the 2nd
MACP, which is an essential consideration for determining his eligibility for
the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. In the absence of
completion of the prescribed qualifying service, the applicant cannot claim
the benefit of the 3rd MACP as a matter of right. Thus, apart from the delay
in raising the grievance and the failure to challenge the earlier determination
during his service tenure, the applicant has also failed to establish his
entitlement to the 3rd MACP on the basis of the requisite qualifying service.
Page 6 of 7
OA No. 330/441 of 2023
The order/decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are
distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case.
15. The applicant, who is a fence-sitter, approached this Tribunal
after the similarly situated persons succeed in Writ Petition/SLP. The law is
well settled that those persons, who did not challenge the wrongful action in
their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only
because of the reason that their counterparts, who had approached the court
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim
that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated
persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and
laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to
dismiss their claim.
16. This Tribunal further finds that the respondents, while passing
the impugned order, have duly considered all the relevant facts, the service
particulars of the applicant, the applicable provisions of the ACP/MACP
Scheme, the Office Memorandum governing the Scheme, as well as the
claim raised by the applicant.
17. In view of the foregoing discussions, no case for interference
has been made out by the applicant. Hence, instant original application is
liable to be dismissed and as such, same is accordingly, dismissed .
18. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
19. No order as to costs.
( Anjani Nandan Sharan ) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)
PM/
Page 7 of 7