भारत सरकार / Government of India
संचार मंत्रालय / Ministry of Communications
डाक विभाग / Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110001
Date: 15-07-2026
To,
All the Heads of Circles.
Sub: Inputs regarding representations and CAT/Court cases seeking financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme by treating promotions through LDCE as Direct Entry consequent to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 24.02.2026 – reg.
Sir/Madam,
I am directed to refer to the references received from various Units and individual representations of officials/retired officials, including those forwarded by the Circles, on the subject cited above following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 24.02.2026 disposing of a batch of 15 SLPs filed against the Department, and to state that the matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T).
2. It is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its Order dated 24.02.2026, has neither decided the question of law nor made any observation on the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme. Further, the DoP&T, vide its I.D. Note No. 35034/16/2016-PPD (MACP) dated 01.07.2026, has advised that such matters may be contested before the appropriate judicial fora on the facts and grounds contained in Annexure-I. DoP&T has also advised that a Review Petition against the aforesaid Order dated 24.02.2026 may be filed. Accordingly, the Department has initiated necessary action for filing the Review Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in consultation with DoLA.
3. In view of the above, individual representations received in Circles or already forwarded to Directorate on the issue may be disposed of in terms of the facts and grounds contained in Annexure-I. The Circles are also requested to ensure that all pending and future CAT/Court cases on the subject are contested on the same grounds, in consultation with the concerned Government Counsel. Any case decided against the Department may also be challenged before High Court/Supreme Court till any further instructions are issued by this Department.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
Yours faithfully,
(Prahalad Ray Meel)
Assistant Director (PCC)
Email: adgpoodte@gmail.com
Copy to:
Chief General Manager, PLI/Parcel Directorate.
Addl. DG, Army Postal Corps, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – 110066.
Sr. DDG (PAF).
All GM (Finance) / Directors of Accounts (Postal).
Annexure-I
i.
The factual matrix of such cases are that, the original applicants were initially appointed as erstwhile Gr.D (now MTS) in GP Rs.1800 / Postman (GP Rs.2000) / Postal Assistant (GP Rs.2400) and were subsequently promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) to the posts of Postman (GP Rs.2000) / Postal Assistant (GP Rs.2400) / Inspector Posts (GP Rs.4600), as the case may be, the details of which are reflected in their respective Service Particulars.
Thereafter, they either earned further regular promotions from time to time or were granted financial upgradations under the TBOP/BCR/ACP Schemes, as per their respective entitlements.
Upon the introduction of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the entitlement of each Original Applicant was assessed by taking into account every regular promotion and financial upgradation already earned by them. Accordingly, such promotions and financial upgradations, wherein the applicants had been placed in the higher pay scale with the benefit of pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(1), were duly offset against the first, second and third financial upgradations, as the case may be, in terms of Para-1 of the MACP Scheme, while reckoning the qualifying service from the respective direct entry grade.
Based on such assessment, the applicants were also granted financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme wherever found eligible. Thus, the Original Applicants have already availed the maximum of three financial upgradations from their respective direct entry grades in Government service, as envisaged under the MACP Scheme. Consequently, they are not entitled to any further financial upgradation under the said Scheme.
ii.
As per the Service Particulars, the Original Applicants have already availed the maximum of three financial upgradations from their respective direct entry grades in Government service, as envisaged under the MACP Scheme. Consequently, they are not entitled to any further financial upgradation under the said Scheme as per the provisions of Para-1 of the Scheme, which, inter-alia, stipulates that:
"1. There shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service respectively. Financial upgradation under the Scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same Grade Pay / Pay Level."
iii.
The DoP&T's consistent stand is that appointment through LDCE against the promotional quota constitutes a promotion and not direct recruitment, as evident from the applicable Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, such appointment on promotion is counted for the purpose of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Schemes.
iv.
The respective applicable Recruitment Rules prescribe Promotion Quota under Method of Recruitment as follows:
Sl. No.
Recruitment Rules
Method of Recruitment
1
Postal/Sorting Assistant Cadre, 1971 (Column No. 9 of RRs)
a) 50% by Promotion through LDCE
b) 50% by Direct Recruitment
2
Inspector Posts, 2001 (Column No. 10 of RRs)
a) 33.34% Direct Recruitment through SSC
b) 66.66% Promotion through LDCE
3
Postman / Mail Guard, 1969 (Column No. 11 of RRs)
a) 50% by Promotion through LDCE from MTS officials.
b) 50% by Direct Recruitment from erstwhile ED agents (now GDS).
v.
The original applicants qualified the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the posts of Postman / Postal Assistant, or Inspector Posts, as applicable, by fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions for their respective feeder cadres, namely MTS / Postman / Postal Assistant.
Their appointments were made against the vacancies earmarked for departmental promotion quota and not against vacancies meant for direct recruitment.
Accordingly, their appointment to the promoted higher posts cannot be treated as direct entry into the Government Service.
vi.
Under the applicable Recruitment Rules, the age limit and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits are not applicable in the case of promotions.
The applicants were not appointed against vacancies earmarked for Direct Recruitment; rather, they were promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) against the departmental promotion quota after availing the relaxations in age and educational qualifications admissible to departmental candidates.
Consequently, their appointment cannot be equated with Direct Recruitment, nor can they claim to have entered the promotional post as direct recruits.
vii.
The Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) is a statutory mode of departmental promotion prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules to provide a fast-track avenue of career progression to eligible departmental officials.
Selection through LDCE is, therefore, a promotion and not a mode of Direct Recruitment.
Treating such promotion at par with Direct Recruitment would be contrary to the express provisions of the applicable Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Such an interpretation would not only defeat the statutory scheme governing appointments and promotions but would also have far-reaching ramifications by opening the floodgates for similar claims across various cadres in the Department of Posts and other Central Government Departments, thereby unsettling the established service jurisprudence and adversely affecting the service conditions of Government employees.
viii.
The MACP Scheme is intended as a "safety net" to mitigate genuine stagnation arising from limited promotional avenues.
As stipulated in Para 1 of the Scheme, three financial upgradations are admissible after completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service, reckoned from the direct entry grade, subject to an employee remaining in the same Grade Pay/Pay Level for 10 years.
Since the original applicants earned regular promotion to the post of Postman / Postal Assistant / Inspector Posts with higher Grade Pay/Pay Level and pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(1), such promotion necessarily counts as a financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.
Ignoring this promotion or treating it as equivalent to direct recruitment would result in grant of more than the permissible three financial upgradations under the Scheme, leading to an unintended and substantial recurring financial burden on the Government exchequer.
ix.
Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 24.02.2026, disposed of a batch of 15 tagged SLPs and Writ Petition without examining the merits in the light of the provisions of the MACP Scheme, the Recruitment Rules, and the applicable legal precedents, while keeping the question of law open, the issue remains unresolved and under active consultation with the DoLA for filing of a comprehensive Review Petition.
Consequently, the Government's policy on MACP Scheme continues to hold the field, and similar cases are required to be contested on merits in the light of the following legal precedents, which have attained finality:
a. Hon'ble Supreme Court
The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent Judgment dated 12.12.2024 in SLP (C) No. 8015 of 2022 has held that:
"21. In other words, the respondents would be entitled to the benefits of the MACPS only after taking into consideration all the financial upgradations earned by them, in terms of the CCS RP Rules. Financial upgradations under the said Rules have to be accounted for and will be treated as financial upgradations earned for the purpose of reckoning the 10-year intervals and the three assured financial upgradations, in terms of Grade Pay, under the MACPS."
b. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, vide its judgment dated 06.06.2022, passed in tagged Writ Petitions bearing Nos.:
16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1745, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016, appreciated the relevant Recruitment Rules and accordingly held that:
"27. ...their contention that the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Postal Assistants is only Direct Recruitment. We have gone through those judgments and with great respect we find that in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Recruitment Rules in question were neither referred to nor discussed. We have elaborately discussed the Recruitment Rules and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard.
29. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the law, we are of the view that the writ petitioners having availed the promotion to the post of Postal Assistant from the lower post of Postman and Gr. D, are not entitled to the grant of financial upgradation under MACPS."
c. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna
In a similar matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, vide its judgment dated 11.09.2024 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14510 of 2021, held that appointment through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) constitutes a promotion in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules.
The relevant observations are:
"6. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether the respondent was directly recruited to the post of Postal Assistant or he was promoted.
7. Perusal of the record, it is evident that he was promoted to the post of Postal Assistant and not by direct recruitment as is evident from Rules 1990 (cited supra) read with the fact that he had participated in the process of promotion. He had appeared for the promotional examination and he was declared successful and posted as Postal Assistant."
d. CAT Full Bench, Chennai
The Hon'ble Full Bench of CAT, Chennai, vide judgment dated 27.01.2025 in S. Vasimalai Vs. Union of India (UOI) held that appointment from Postman to Postal Assistant through LDCE is a case of promotion by accelerated departmental selection, not direct recruitment.
The Bench relied on the Recruitment Rules and observed that departmental candidates form a separate class, the age and educational conditions applicable to direct recruits do not apply to them, and on failure to confirm they are reverted to the lower post, which is consistent with promotion and not fresh recruitment. The Tribunal further held that the very objective of departmental tests is to fast-track promotion, and therefore the appointment through LDCE is "only promotion and not direct recruitment."
e. Hon'ble Supreme Court
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Subramaniyan Vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7779 of 2012, decided on 15.03.2019) recognized that LDCE is an accelerated promotion mechanism and is distinguishable from normal seniority-based promotion.
However, the mere fact that selection is made through a competitive examination does not alter the character of appointment from promotion to direct recruitment.
Leave a Comment