Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a retired Sub Postmaster who sought the benefit of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme, specifically the third financial upgradation (MACP-III). He was appointed as Group-D employee in the Postal Department on 17.06.1975, selected as Postal Assistant through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) on 13.08.1979, and granted financial upgradations under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) on 22.08.1995 and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) on 01.01.2006. He retired on 31.05.2014 after attaining superannuation. On 01.06.2017, he submitted a representation for grant of MACP-III benefits, which was rejected. Consequently, he filed Original Application No.170/00045/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, seeking various reliefs including extension of MACP-III scheme benefits. The Tribunal, by order dated 26.10.2018, allowed the application holding that the matter was covered by its earlier order in O.A.No.377/2017, which had relied on orders of the Jodhpur and Madras Benches and the Madras High Court. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Tribunal's order. The main legal issue was whether the selection as Postal Assistant after clearing LDCE constituted a promotion, affecting eligibility for MACP-III. The petitioners contended that the MACP scheme is prospective and not applicable to the respondent, and that the Tribunal erred by relying on an earlier order; they placed reliance on a co-ordinate bench decision in Union of India vs. Bhimaraya V. Kattimani. The respondent argued that the matter was covered by another co-ordinate bench decision in Union of India vs. Faiyaz Hussain, wherein the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to be decided in terms of Supreme Court judgments in R.K. Sharma and K. Sudheesh Kumar, and that a government clarification dated 06.09.2021 could be considered. The High Court examined the history of the TBOP, BCR, and MACP schemes, noting that the MACP scheme was introduced on 01.09.2008 to address stagnation. The court identified that the crux of the issue was whether the selection as Postal Assistant after LDCE was a promotion or appointment. Following its earlier decision in Union of India vs. M.G. Shivalingappa (W.P.No.57935/2017) and Union of India vs. Smt. R.K. Kulkarni, the court held that such selection is to be treated as a promotion. Since the respondent had already received one promotion (on selection as Postal Assistant) and two financial upgradations under TBOP and BCR, he could not claim further benefit under MACP-III, as the scheme’s purpose is to alleviate stagnation, which did not arise in his case. The court thus found the Tribunal's order untenable.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Entitlement to MACP-III after promotion and two financial upgradations - Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2009 - Selection as Postal Assistant after clearing Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) is treated as a promotion - An employee who has already received one promotion and two financial upgradations under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) schemes is not entitled to the benefit of MACP-III, as the scheme is intended to address stagnation, and such stagnation does not arise when there has been promotion and upgradations - The High Court followed the decision in Union of India vs. M.G. Shivalingappa and noted that the Tribunal's order granting MACP-III benefits was not sustainable. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.170/00045/2018 required to be interfered with?
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- MACP scheme is prospective not retrospective
- selection as Postal Assistant after LDCE is promotion
- TBOP/BCR financial upgradations count towards MACP entitlements
- employee having promotion and two upgradations not entitled to MACP-III
- stagnation not established.
