- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 17390 OF 2022 (S-CAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15052 OF 2022 (S-CAT) WRIT PETITION NO. 15964 OF 2022 (S-CAT) IN WP No. 17390/2022 BETWEEN: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001 2. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES BENGALURU WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 086 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. V. RAJINI FOR SRI. B PRAMOD., CGC) AND: 1. K.S. NAGARAJA S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY K, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 EARLIER WORKING AS POSTAL ASSISTANT, YESHWANTHPUR P.O, BENGALURU - 560 022. NOW R/AT NO. 515, II CROSS, III BLOCK, III STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU 560079 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN OA NO.1295/2014 AND DECLARE IT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MACP SCHEME AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2018 (ANNEXURE-A1) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.170/00039/2018 FILED IN OA NO.170/1295/2014 AND DECLARE IT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MACP SCHEME AND ETC., IN WP NO. 15052/2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES BANGALORE WEST DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 086 ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT. V. RAJINI FOR SRI. B PRAMOD., CGC) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 AND: B.N JAYARAMAN POSTAL ASSISTANT (MARKETING EXECUTIVE) RETIRED AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS EARLIER RESIDING AT A -4/1 P AND T QUARTERS KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032 AT PRESENT RESIDING AT NO 308 , 3RD FLOOR, GOMATHI ENCLAVE, 1ST CROSS ANANTHNAGAR, 2ND PHASE, VISHAL MART OPP ROAD, HUSKUR GATE, E-CITY POST, BANGALORE – 560 100 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAIAH VISWAKARMA & SRI. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH ADVOCATES) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN OA NO.1240/2014 AND DECLARE IT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MACP SCHEME AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2018 (ANNEXURE-A1) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.170/00037/2018 FILED IN OA NO.170/1240/2014 AND DECLARE IT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MACP SCHEME AND ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 IN WP NO. 15964/2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES BANGALORE WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU – 560 086. 3. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT. V. RAJINI FOR SRI. B PRAMOD., CGC) AND: NAGANNA S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED SUB POST MASTER, VENKATARANGAPUR P.O, MALLESHWARAM , BENGALURU – 560 003. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT NO 27, 4TH CROSS, NARAYANA RAO COLONY, OKALIPURAM, SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE – 560 021. ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN OA No-1403/2014 AND DECLARE IT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MACP SCHEME2 SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2018 (ANNEXURE-A1) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN REVIEW APPLICATION No-170/00036/2018 FILED IN OA No-170/1403/2014 AND DECLARE IT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MACP SCHEME AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) As the question involved in all the writ petitions are common as to whether the respondents would be entitled for second or third Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, ‘MACP Scheme’), all the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.No.17390/2022, the Union by Department of Posts is before this Court questioning the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 order dated 17.01.2018 in O.A.No.1295/2014 as well as order dated 19.11.2018 in RA.No.170/00039/2018 filed in O.A.No.170/1295/2014, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘CAT’) whereunder the CAT directed the petitioners herein to grant second and third financial upgradations under MACP Scheme to the Respondent herein. The date of entry of the respondent to the service as well as the promotion and time bound promotion of the respondent is indicated in the following table: Details K.S.Nagaraja (Respondent) Date of entry to service as Postman 27.04.1987 Date of Promotion as Postal Assistant 01.05.1991 Set of against MACP-I Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) 18.05.2007 Set of against MACP-II Grant of III MACP 15.05.2017 III MACP granted Date of retirement 30.09.2019 3. In W.P.No.15052/2022, the Union of India by the Department of Posts is before this Court questioning the order passed by the CAT dated 17.01.2018 in O.A.No.1240/2014 as well as order dated 19.11.2018 in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 R.A.No.170/00037/2018 in O.A.No.170/1240/2014, whereunder the CAT directed the petitioners herein to grant second and third financial upgradations under MACP Scheme to the Respondent herein. The date of entry of the respondent to the service as well as the promotion and time bound promotion of the respondent is indicated in the following table: Details B.N.Jayaraman (Respondent) Date of entry to service as Gp D 13.02.1980 Date of Promotion as Postman 20.06.1987 Set of against MACP-I Promotion as Postal Assistant 10.09.1990 Set of against MACP-II Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) 27.09.2006 Set of against MACP-III Date of retirement 31.03.2016 4. In W.P.No.15964/2022, the Union by the Department of Posts is before this Court questioning the order passed by the CAT dated 17.01.2018 in O.A.No.1403/2014 as well as order dated 19.11.2018 in R.A.No.170/00036/2018 in O.A.No.170/1403/2014, whereunder the CAT directed the petitioners herein to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 grant second and third financial upgradations under MACP. The date of entry of the respondent to the service as well as the promotion and time bound promotion of the respondent is indicated in the following table: Details Naganna (Respondent) Date of entry to service as Postman 27.08.1981 Date of Promotion as Postal Assistant 09.09.1990 Set of against MACP-I Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) 26.09.2006 Set of against MACP-II MACP-III with Grade pay of Rs.4200/- 13.09.2011 Set of against MACP-III Date of retirement 30.06.2013 5. Heard Smt.V.Rajini for Sri.B.Pramod, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners. In W.P.No.17390/2022 and W.P.No.15964/2022, the respondents are served and they have remained absent. In W.P.No.15052/2022, the respondent is represented by learned counsels Sri.Channaiah Viswakarma and Sri.Sampangi Ramaiah and we have heard the said learned counsel for the respondent. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the CAT committed a grave error in directing grant of second and third MACPs to the respondents in the above writ petitions as they were not entitled for grant of second and third MACPs in view of the fact that during their service, they have been promoted as Postal Assistants and further they were also granted time bound promotion. It is submitted that, the purpose and object of MACP Scheme is to provide financial upgradation to a person who is deprived of promotion for more than ten years and when he continues in the same post for more than ten years. Thus, she would submit that since the respondents herein were promoted and also got time bound promotion prior to coming into force of the MACP Scheme, hence they would not be entitled for second or third MACPs. Thus, she would pray for allowing the writ petitions by setting aside the order passed by the CAT. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Channaiah Viswakarma for respondent would submit that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 respondent initially entered into service as Group-D in the Postal Department on 13.02.1980 and he was promoted as Postman and thereafter he was directly recruited as Postal Assistant on 10.09.1990. Therefore, he submits that he is directly recruited as Postal Assistant and that cannot be considered as promotion to deny second MACP. As the respondent was directly recruited as Postal Assistant, he would get second and third MACPs thereafter. Thus, he would support the order passed by the CAT. 8. By Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure-C), the Government of India introduced MACP for the Central Government Civilian Employees. The MACP would contemplate three financial upgradations, counted from the direct entry wherein on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service. The financial upgradation under the Scheme would be admissible whenever the person has spent ten years continuous service in the same grade pay. Further, the Scheme would state that the promotions earned in the post carrying - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose of MACPs. 9. In the above three writ petitions, the respondents entered service and thereafter they were promoted to the next higher cadre of Postman or Postal Assistant and thereafter they also got one time bound promotion. The contention of the respondent that the promotion to the post of Postal Assistant is to be considered as direct recruitment cannot be accepted. The post of Sorting Assistant or Postal Assistant is to be filled up, 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion through test. The respondents applied for promotion though Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and thereafter they were promoted as Sorting Assistant or Postal assistants under the promotional quota. Therefore, the contention that they are to be treated as direct recruits is rejected. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the identical fact situation in W.P.No.57935/2017 dated 02.08.2018 as well as W.P.No.102317/2018 dated 27.11.2018. In W.P.No.57935/2017, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraphs 5 and 6 has held as follows: “5. In that regard, at the outset what is necessary to be taken note is the actual purport of the designation of the respondent as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the same could be considered as a promotion that has intervened and elevated the position to a different grade so that the continuity in the same post cannot be contended and the financial up-gradation through MACP be claimed. To that extent, the Rules for recruitment as at Annexure-R.4 would disclose that in respect of the Clerks and Sorters, the promotional avenue is 50% by direct recruitment and the remaining is by promotion through a test. If in that background the respondent who is promoted as Sorting Assistant through the order dated 21.05.1982 (Annexure-A2) is taken note, it is seen that the persons as named therein are the departmental promotees who are promoted to assume the post as Sorting Assistant - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 and the name of the respondent is found at Sl.No.6. If that be the position, the change from the Group- D post to which the petitioner was appointed on 28.11.1979 and to the Sorting Assistant on 24.05.1982 will have to be considered as promotion. If that be the position, the stagnation for which the financial upgradation is provided under the MACP Scheme cannot be applied when a promotion has been granted to the employee concerned. Thereafter when the respondent was in the promoted post as per the scheme that was in vogue at that point in time, the TBOP has been granted on 28.05.1998 when he had qualified for the same after putting in 16 years in the said position. Subsequently, on 01.07.2008 the next BCR financial up-gradation has been granted. 6. On these aspects when there is no serious dispute and the respondent has been granted one promotion and two financial up- gradations, the case of the respondent being considered once over again for grant of MACP in the manner as directed by the CAT would not arise in the instant case. In that view, the order directing the petitioners to treat the case of the respondent as appointment with effect from the date on which he was promoted and thereafter grant the benefit of MACP Scheme would not be justified. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 Accordingly, the order dated 21.08.2017 impugned at Annexure-A to this petition is set aside.” 11. In W.P.No.102317/2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraphs 11, 12 and 17 has held as follows: “11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the Rules. Under the said Rules, it is noted that the appointment to the post of Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant is in the following manner: (A) 50% by direct recruitment (B) 50% by promotion through a test The same is clearly mentioned in the Schedule to the Rules. On reading of the same, it becomes clear that filling up of the post of Postal Assistant or Sorting Assistant or any other equivalent post is from two sources, namely from direct recruitment (50%) and promotion through a departmental test (50%). Thus, the said posts are filled up in a two- fold manner in equal proportion i.e., 50% each. 12. It is not in dispute that when the respondent appeared for the departmental test, he was already working in the department as a Postman and being an employee of the Postal - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 Department was eligible to appear for the departmental test. On qualifying in the said test, he was promoted as Postal Assistant. Therefore, his appointment as a Postal Assistant was clearly by way of promotion and not by way of direct recruitment. Appointment to 50% of the vacancies by direct recruitment would only be to those persons who are not in the department, i.e., outsiders who would apply for the said posts. But as far as employees of the department are concerned, they could only be appointed to the said posts by way of promotion on being qualified in the departmental test. In the circumstances, the appointment of the respondent as Postal Assistant was by way of promotion and not by way of direct recruitment. The same has been held so, by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in its latest order dated 02.08.2018 in the case of Shivalingappa. At paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it is observed as under: “5. In that regard, at the outset what is necessary to be taken note is the actual purport of the designation of the respondent as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the same could be considered as a promotion that has intervened and elevated the position to a different grade so that the continuity in the same post cannot be contended and the financial up-gradation through MACP be claimed. To that extent, the Rules for recruitment as at Annexure-R4 would disclose that in respect of the Clerks and Sorters, the promotional avenue is 50% by direct recruitment and the remaining is by promotion through a test. If in that background the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 respondent who is promoted as Sorting Assistant through the order dated 21.05.1982(Annexure-A2) is taken note, it is seen that the persons as named therein are the departmental promotees who are promoted to assume the post as Sorting Assistant and the name of the respondent is found at Sl.No.6. If that be the position, the change from the Group-D post to which the petitioner was appointed on 28.11.1979 and to the Sorting Assistant on 24.05.1982 will have to be considered as promotion. If that be the position, the stagnation for which the financial upgradation is provided under the MACP Scheme cannot be applied when a promotion has been granted to the employee concerned. Thereafter when the respondent was in the promoted post as per the scheme that was in vogue at that point in time, the TBOP has been granted on 28.05.1998 when he had qualified for the same after putting in 16 years in the said position. Subsequently, on 01.07.2008 the next BCR financial up-gradation has been granted. 6. On these aspects when there is no serious dispute and the respondent has been granted one promotion and two financial upgradations, the case of the respondent being considered once over again for grant of MACP in the manner as directed by the CAT would not arise in the instant case. In that view, the order directing the petitioners to treat the case of the respondent as appointment with effect from the date on which he was promoted and thereafter grant the benefit of MACP Scheme would not be justified. Accordingly, the order dated 21.08.2017 impugned at Annexure-A to this petition is set aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of.” Therefore, by following the said order, we could allow these petitions by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 respondent, but, the controversy does not end here. xxxxxx 17. There is another reason as to why the order of the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and the order of Division Bench of the Madras High Court cannot be applied ipso facto to the facts of the present case. In those orders reference has not been made to the Schedule to the Rules as in the instant case, which is extracted above. The mode of filling up of post of Postal Assistant or Sorting Assistant under the Rules was not brought to the notice of the said Benches. In fact, in the order of the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, there is a specific observation regarding counsel for the appellant therein i.e., Union of India and the Postal Department, being repeatedly asked to place on record the provision for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant or Sorting Assistant. It has been observed that, no such provision was placed for perusal of the Court. In those circumstances, it was inferred that appointment pursuant to a departmental test i.e., ‘Limited Competitive Examination’ is nothing but, ‘direct recruitment’. That the appointment made was in the nature of a direct recruitment and not a promotion which inference is contrary to the Rules. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 In the circumstances, by construing the said appointment to be one of direct recruitment and not promotion, a direction was issued to the Union of India as well as to the Postal Department to extend the benefits under MACP-III to the respondent therein. Similarly, in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, there is no reference to the Rules as well as to the Schedule under the Rules. In the circumstances, in paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it has been construed that the appointment of the respondent therein as a Postal Assistant was not by way of promotion and hence, similar directions were issued in favour of the employees. But in the instant case, our attention has been drawn to the Schedule to the Rules under which the nature of appointment has been clearly prescribed. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondent was appointed to the post of Postal Assistant on being qualified in the departmental test while he was already working as a Postman in the department. Hence, it is clearly a case of promotion.” 12. By following the above decisions of the Co- ordinate Bench, we pass the following: ORDER a) All the writ petitions are allowed. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27768-DB WP No. 17390 of 2022 C/W WP No. 15052 of 2022 WP No. 15964 of 2022 b) The orders passed by the CAT dated 17.01.2018 in OA.No.1295/2014 as well as order dated 19.11.2018 in RA.No.170/00039/2018 filed in OA.No.170/1295/2014; in OA.No.1240/2014 as well as order dated 19.11.2018 in RA.No.170/00037/2018 in OA.No.170/1240/2014; and in OA.No.1403/2014 as well as order dated 19.11.2018 in RA.No.170/00036/2018 in OA.No.170/1403/2014 are set aside and are dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE NC CT: RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16