Appointment through LDCE does not count as a promotion for MACP financial upgradation.

The applicant joined the Department of Posts as an ED BPM on 1 December 1982 and was granted a technical appointment to Group ‘D’ with effect from 10 April 1991. He was appointed as a Postman through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) with effect from 1 June 1996.

Under the MACP Scheme, which took effect from 1 September 2008, he received a second financial upgradation from that date and a third from 1 September 2018; he retired on 30 June 2023.

The Department refused his request for a first MACP from 1 September 2008, treating his appointment as Postman through LDCE as his first promotion and financial upgradation. After his representations were rejected, he challenged those decisions before the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant’s appointment as Postman through LDCE was to be treated as a promotion or financial upgradation when determining his entitlement under the MACP Scheme.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a first financial upgradation under MACP with effect from 1 September 2008 and consequential benefits.

The MACP Scheme, introduced by the Department of Posts by Office Memorandum dated 18 September 2009 with effect from 1 September 2008, provides for financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service, subject to the Scheme’s conditions.

The Tribunal relied on its decision in Kharaiti Lal & Others v. Union of India, O.A. No. 607/PB/2012, which held that selection through LDCE for a higher post is not to be treated as a promotion for counting financial upgradations under MACP; the judgment records that the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s order in the related proceedings.

Applying that principle, an LDCE appointment could not be counted as the applicant’s first financial upgradation.

The applicant’s appointment as Postman through LDCE was undisputed, and the Department had relied on it as a promotion to deny him a first MACP.

The Tribunal followed Kharaiti Lal, treating LDCE selection to a higher post as career advancement through selection, not a promotion for MACP counting purposes.

It therefore found that the Department had wrongly counted the 1996 appointment as the applicant’s first financial upgradation and consequently mischaracterised the MACP granted from 1 September 2008 as his second.

It directed the respondents to exclude the applicant’s appointment as Postman through LDCE from the count of financial upgradations, grant him a first MACP with effect from 1 September 2008, and extend consequential benefits, including pay refixation and any resulting revision of retiral benefits. The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.