MACP financial upgradation conditional on Apex Court's ruling on promotional vs. direct recruitment.

The applicant, Sri Kabir Charan Mallik, entered service as a Postman on June 11, 1970.

He was subsequently appointed as a Postal Assistant on July 4, 1975, after qualifying in the L.G.O. Examination.

He received financial upgradations under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) scheme on July 4, 1991, and the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) scheme on January 1, 2002.

He retired on March 31, 2009.

The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme was introduced on September 18, 2009, effective from September 1, 2008, allowing for three financial upgradations after 10, 20, and 30 years of service.

The applicant sought the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP, claiming he had completed 34 years of service before retirement.

His representation was rejected by Respondent No. 1 on July 12, 2011.

The applicant's previous O.A. and Review Application were dismissed by the Tribunal but subsequently remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on March 21, 2024, for fresh adjudication, noting that the Tribunal had failed to consider a relevant judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme with effect from September 1, 2008.

2. Whether the applicant's appointment as Postal Assistant after qualifying in the departmental examination should be treated as a promotion or a direct recruitment for the purpose of MACP benefits.

The court primarily considered the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme introduced by Respondent No. 1 on September 18, 2009, effective from September 1, 2008, which grants three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service if no regular promotion is granted.

It also referenced the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Time Scale Clerks and Sorters) Recruitment Rules, 1971, which govern the method of recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, specifying 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

The court deliberated on the interpretation of "promotion" versus "direct recruitment" in the context of LDCE, citing conflicting judgments from various High Courts and Tribunals, including the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Madras Bench, Principal Bench (Delhi), and the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, and Karnataka.

The court acknowledged the applicant's claim for the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP, noting he had received one promotion and two financial upgradations under TBOP and BCR schemes.

The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's appointment to Postal Assistant through an LDCE constituted a promotion or direct recruitment, as this classification significantly impacts eligibility for MACP benefits.

The Tribunal referenced various precedents.

The CAT Madras Bench in O.A. No. 1088/2011, relying on the Jodhpur Bench's decision, found that joining as a Postal Assistant through a selection process was a career advancement, not a promotion in the earlier service, making the date of joining as Postal Assistant relevant for counting stagnation for MACP.

However, the Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 219/2015 disagreed, noting that the Delhi High Court had reviewed its earlier decision in Shakeel Ahmad Burney's case (which had supported the direct recruitment view) due to the non-consideration of the 1971 Recruitment Rules.

The Ahmedabad Bench concluded that 50% reservation for departmental candidates in LDCE implied an element of promotion.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4829/2015 also held that appointment as Postal Assistant through LDCE was a promotion, not direct recruitment, based on the 1971 Rules, noting that previous judgments dismissing this distinction had not considered these rules.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in W.P. (C) No. 2806/2016, also noted the conflicting views among High Courts and the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court regarding this very issue (Dev Karan Mahala v. Union of India).

The Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 2679/2011, aligning with Delhi High Court and Apex Court decisions, had previously held that selection as Postal Assistant through LDCE should be treated as a promotion.

Given the ongoing litigation and conflicting judicial interpretations on this crucial point, especially the pending SLP in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal suspended a definitive ruling and opted to await clarity from the Apex Court.

It explicitly stated that since the matter has not attained finality due to the pendency of the SLP (C) Diary No. 4793 of 2019 in the case of Dev Karan Mahala v. Union of India before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's grievance in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in that case.

No costs were awarded.