w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Union of India, Through The Secretary, Communications & I.T. Department of Post, New Delhi & Others v/s Amar Singh Sahu & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- T P COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22211UP1995PLC019014

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2009PLC022300

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND M COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056539

Company & Directors' Information:- S P COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45100WB1997PTC085372

Company & Directors' Information:- L-3 COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909KA1999PTC025302

Company & Directors' Information:- P U COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070141

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC260254

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51395UP1998PTC024022

Company & Directors' Information:- S R COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106970

Company & Directors' Information:- M G COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC023568

Company & Directors' Information:- S N COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U72900DL2002PTC118175

Company & Directors' Information:- B E COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64204WB2007PTC117516

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- S A COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64204MH2020PTC343477

Company & Directors' Information:- N AND M COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92112MH1996PTC102814

Company & Directors' Information:- E 6 COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC024856

Company & Directors' Information:- B N B COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30009DL1996PTC081267

Company & Directors' Information:- VERSUS COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300WB2005PTC103033

Company & Directors' Information:- A P COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U94201DL2001PTC112095

Company & Directors' Information:- N V COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC135640

Company & Directors' Information:- N C COMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72500DL1996PTC075119

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32102KA1991PTC012068

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC144206

Company & Directors' Information:- N & D COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TN2003PTC050717

Company & Directors' Information:- R C COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U93090OR2006PTC008788

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND M COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC146926

Company & Directors' Information:- D S COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202DL2005PTC142556

Company & Directors' Information:- O. T. S. COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000MH2007PTC169128

Company & Directors' Information:- R K D COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64200MH2011PTC217962

Company & Directors' Information:- N S S COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071384

Company & Directors' Information:- D T N COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64203TN1982PTC009325

Company & Directors' Information:- B R I O COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22300DL2012PTC242469

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND I COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2005PTC140331

Company & Directors' Information:- M M M COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32204DL2007PTC164017

Company & Directors' Information:- D W W COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMTIED [Strike Off] CIN = U64200DL2007PTC169339

Company & Directors' Information:- K 2 COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300KA2007PTC042842

Company & Directors' Information:- K. R. COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999GJ2016PTC093336

Company & Directors' Information:- A. N. COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74130DL2020PTC372569

Company & Directors' Information:- AMAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MP2021PTC055369

Company & Directors' Information:- V R COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2021PTC202406

Company & Directors' Information:- U F O COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92100DL1997PTC087625

Company & Directors' Information:- K & K COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300TN1995PTC030627

Company & Directors' Information:- Z AND N COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300TZ1996PTC007333

Company & Directors' Information:- AMAR CO. PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC003103

    WPS No. 1772, 1903, 2591, 2592 of 2017

    Decided On, 15 April 2019

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

    For the Petitioners: B. Gopa Kumar, ASG. For the Respondents: R.N. Pusty, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ

1. Union of India would assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench sitting at Bilaspur, allowing the original application filed by the respondents in which the challenge was to the withdrawal of the benefit of third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (for brevity 'MACP') scheme vide order dated 26.06.2014.

2. Learned Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners would argue that the respondents were initially appointed as Extra Departmental Postal Agents and thereafter promoted to the post of Postman and thereafter to the post of Postal Assistant, therefore, it being a case of promotion the benefit of MACP was not available to the respondents.

3. Perusal of the papers including the impugned order would reveal that while allowing the original application, the Tribunal has referred to similar order of Jodhpur Bench of CAT in which the writ petitions were allowed holding that the employees like the present respondents were appointed as Postal Assistant after being selected in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), therefore, they were direct recruits and not promotes on the said post and as such they are entitled to MACP. This order of the Jodhpur Bench was affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11336/2012. In that writ petition itself the Rajasthan High Court referred and relied upon similar writ petition decided by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.4131/2014 (Union of India and others vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney) decided on 05.08.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would place before this Court the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Writ Review Petition No.171/2016 between Union of India and others vs. S.N. Singh Bhati decided on 03.01.2018. This order of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court would observe thus in paragraph 6, 7 and 8:-

“6. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that similar is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the Civil Writ Petition No.30629/2014, Union of India & Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar & Anr. against which decision SLP(C) No.4848/2016, Union of India & Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16th August, 20106 vide Review Petition (C) No.1939/2017 was dismissed by the Supreme Court as recently as on 13th September, 2017. Learned counsel further submit that even a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition 200807/2016, The Union of India & Ors. vs. Shri Basanna Nayak has taken a similar view. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that in the Madras Circle and Karnataka Circle the decisions have been implemented.

7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner does not dispute aforesaid facts pertaining to the decisions of the Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court having attained finality on the same issue. The decision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal brings out that Group-D employees, irrespective of their seniority participated in a merit based selection and appointed to the higher post were never treated as a case of promotion. The examination was not a Limited Departmental Qualifying Examination but was a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Before the MACP Scheme was introduced the department had a TBOP/BCR Financial upgradation Scheme and under the said Scheme benefit was granted treating the appointment as one of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion.

8. Thus we find not merit in the review petitions which are dismissed and since we are dismissing the review petitions on merits we are no going into the issue whether sufficient cause has been shown in the delay to be condoned.”

5. Challenging the above order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the writ petition, the Union of India moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No(s).23260/2018, wherein the SLPs were dismissed in limine. The issue is thus settled by at least three High Courts namely Karnataka High Court, Madras High Court and Rajasthan High Court and in the matter arising from Rajasthan High Court, SLP has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. It is informed that the matter has not attained finality in the Delhi High Court. Be that as it may, the similar issue has already been decided by the Rajasthan High Court, therefore, considering the fact that the Postal Assistants are Central Government employees and the orders passed by Karnataka, Madras and Rajasthan High Courts have already been implemented to the benefit of Postal Assistants working in those circles, we are not inclined to interfere with the imp

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ugned order. 7. Otherwise also, it is clear that the appointments to the post of Postal Assistants were made through Limited Competitive Examination and not through Limited Departmental Examination. Thus, it being a case of selection and not only a qualifying examination, their appointments and posting on the post of Postal Assistant was by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion, therefore, the CAT has rightly held them to be entitled to MACP. 8. In above manner, writ petitions are dismissed.
O R