Postal Assistants appointed after serving as Postmen are entitled to MACP benefits.

The respondents were serving or retired Postal Assistants who had previously served as Postmen.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, allowed their claims for benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP Scheme).

The Union of India and Department of Posts challenged those orders, relying, among other things, on decisions said to take a contrary view.

The respondents relied on Supreme Court orders concerning similarly placed employees, including the order in Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 2019 and connected matters.

1. Whether the respondents were disentitled to MACP benefits solely because they had been appointed as Postal Assistants after serving as Postmen.

The MACP Scheme was the benefit framework in dispute.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s orders in Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 2019 and connected matters: although the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and special leave petitions while leaving the question of law open, it recorded prior dismissals of petitions involving the same issue; in connected appeals, it set aside the impugned High Court orders and directed compliance with the Tribunal’s orders or extension of MACP benefits.

The Kerala High Court construed those orders as supporting MACP entitlement for employees identically placed as the respondents, while treating the question of entitlement to any other benefit as open for determination.

The Court considered the Supreme Court’s treatment of claims by similarly situated Postal Assistants decisive for the present MACP claims.

It reasoned that denying the respondents the benefit granted to comparable employees elsewhere would produce unequal treatment, and that the Supreme Court’s orders could not be construed to permit that result.

It therefore declined to follow the contrary position advanced by the Union, including reliance on Union of India v. S. Sivadasan and N. Selvan v. Union of India.

The Court dismissed all the Original Petitions (CAT), thereby leaving the Tribunal’s orders granting MACP benefits undisturbed.