Financial upgradation granted to similarly placed Postmen upheld in accordance with Supreme Court precedent.

The Union of India and authorities of the Department of Posts filed writ petitions challenging orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, which had allowed the respondents’ original applications and, in some cases, dismissed the Union’s review applications.

The Tribunal had directed the grant of financial upgradation to employees of the Department of Posts.

The principal controversy concerned whether appointment as Postman was by way of direct recruitment or promotion, an issue having a direct bearing on the respondents’ entitlement to financial upgradation.

The High Court had previously dismissed a similar writ petition in Union of India & Ors. v. Kapoor Singh, W.P.(C) 11957/2023, after considering the Supreme Court’s decisions in Union of India & Ors. v. E. Sreeramulu and connected matters.

The Union contended that the Supreme Court had left the question of law open and that the issue required fresh consideration.

The respondents relied upon the Supreme Court’s orders and subsequent decisions of the High Court involving similarly placed Department of Posts employees.

The Court applied the principle of judicial consistency and parity: where the Supreme Court and the High Court have decided the same legal issue in relation to the same department and similarly situated employees, the Union cannot seek a contrary determination in individual cases.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. E. Sreeramulu, Civil Appeal No. 4432/2019 and connected matters, and the order dated 24 February 2026 in SLP(C) No. 26561/2019, which required compliance with the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It also followed the High Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Suresh Chander Sharma & Ors., W.P.(C) 7757/2016, Union of India v. Naresh Chand Sharma & Ors., W.P.(C) 11120/2023, and Union of India & Ors. v. Kapoor Singh, W.P.(C) 11957/2023.

No specific statutory provision was identified as the basis of the holding; the decision rested principally on binding precedent, parity, and adherence to Supreme Court directions.

The Court rejected the Union’s submission that the issue required fresh consideration.

It noted that the Supreme Court had already dealt with the relevant controversy in E. Sreeramulu and connected proceedings, and that the Supreme Court’s subsequent order directed compliance with the Tribunal’s orders.

The Court further recorded that the Union had implemented the relevant Supreme Court and High Court decisions concerning similarly situated Department of Posts employees.

Since the present respondents belonged to the same department and were similarly placed, the Court held that a different view could not be adopted in their cases.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s directions granting financial upgradation did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

The Union was directed to implement the Tribunal’s orders within eight weeks from the date of judgment.

If the benefits were not released within three months, the respondents were held entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

The pending applications were dismissed as infructuous.