Sealed-cover cases require periodic review and cannot be withheld indefinitely.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant appointed on 30 March 1992, received Time Bound Promotion with effect from 17 January 2008.

After completing 20 years of regular service on 30 March 2012, he sought a second financial upgradation under the MACPS; his case was considered by a committee on 7 June 2012, but the benefit was not granted.

He was later deemed suspended from 3 April 2013 in connection with a criminal case, formally suspended on 4 June 2013, and reinstated after revocation of suspension on 26 August 2014.

He also alleged that his case was kept under sealed cover in subsequent DPCs.

After his representations remained unresolved, he applied to the Tribunal seeking consideration for second MACP and opening of the sealed cover, including consideration for ad-hoc promotion.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for second financial upgradation under the MACPS from 30 March 2012 should be granted, having regard to the Scheme and the status of any relevant proceedings on the applicable dates.

2. Whether the sealed-cover procedure and the applicant’s claim for ad-hoc promotion were dealt with in accordance with the applicable DoP&T instructions, including the review requirements in the O.M. dated 14 September 1992.

The MACPS governs financial upgradation, and paragraph 18 provides that cases involving disciplinary or penalty proceedings are subject to the rules governing normal promotion and are to be regulated in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and relevant instructions.

The DoP&T O.M. dated 14 September 1992 requires periodic, six-monthly review of sealed-cover cases and provides for consideration of ad-hoc promotion after two years in qualifying cases, subject to prescribed conditions, including that the employee is not under suspension.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant’s reliance on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, but did not decide the case by applying that precedent or determine its effect on the applicant’s entitlement.

The Tribunal observed that the suspension commenced after the committee considered the applicant’s MACP case on 7 June 2012, but held that this timing alone did not resolve entitlement: the claim had to be determined under the MACPS and the applicable instructions on disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

As to sealed cover and ad-hoc promotion, the Tribunal found that the relevant facts—including when the procedure was first invoked, the nature and stage of the proceedings, the applicant’s suspension status, and whether periodic reviews occurred—required examination of the original departmental record.

It therefore made no final finding on either claim.

It directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the second MACP claim and the sealed-cover/ad-hoc promotion claim, applying the relevant MACPS provisions, rules, and DoP&T instructions, and specifically examining the six-monthly review and two-year ad-hoc promotion provisions of the 14 September 1992 O.M.

The order must be made within three months of receipt of a certified copy; any benefit found due must be extended with consequential benefits in accordance with the rules.

No order as to costs.