One Day, One Minute, One Rule – 400 What instructions were issued by the Directorate regarding promotions to the Higher Selection Grade-I (Non-Functional Grade) [HSG-I (NFG)] in light of the proposed merger of the Postmaster cadre with the general line?

 Rules, Rights & Rites -153

I usually post all important items related to official rulings, union news, and other general matters on my YouTube channels: Yourskayveeyes (English) and Anbudan Kayveeyes (Tamil).
However, due to the recent spate of orders and the high volume of information being received, I have not been able to convert every item into a video. Therefore, I am introducing these new slots to post current matters and updates that have not yet been published on YouTube. This ensures you stay informed on every detail, even if a video hasn't been made yet …………….Kayveeyes

High Court judgment in the case of Shri G. Ravi & Ors Writ Petition Number: WP No. 16473 of 2017 Date of Judgment: 28-07-2025 with the subsequent Directorate implementation order:

• The petitioners challenged an earlier order to determine if their appointment as Postal Assistants (PA) from the lower posts of Postman and Group D via the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) should be treated as "Direct Recruitment" or "Promotion" for MACP benefits.
• The Madras High Court referenced the case of N. Selvan vs. Union of India, which established that such appointments are promotions, not direct recruitment, because the PA post is higher and involves a selection process.
• The Court ruled that since the petitioners had already availed a promotion to the PA cadre, they were not entitled to treat that entry as a fresh direct entry for granting additional MACP financial upgradations.
• The Court explicitly noted that the Postal Assistant position is "admittedly a higher post carrying a higher scale" than the lower posts of Postman and Group D.
• The appointment was determined to be a promotion because it involved a selection process through a Departmental Test, which legally distinguishes it from standard direct entry.
• The Court heavily relied on the principles established in the earlier batch case of N. Selvan vs. Union of India (WP No. 16818 of 2017, dated 06.06.2022).
• The Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's conclusion that because the appointment to Postal Assistant was a promotion, the petitioners were not entitled to MACP I.
• It was noted that since the petitioners had already received TBOP (Time Bound One-time Promotion) financial upgradation, their claim for MACP II was set off.
• The judgment clarified that these employees would only be entitled to MACP III benefits upon completing 30 years of service from their initial date of entry into department service.
• Both the petitioners' and respondents' counsel reported to the Court that the order in the N. Selvan case had already become final.
• Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the original CAT order (dated 08.01.2016) and dismissed the writ petition without awarding any costs.
• Following the judgment, the Department of Posts issued a letter on December 29, 2025, to all Chief Postmasters General.
• The Directorate circulated the G. Ravi judgment specifically to serve as legal guidance for Postal Circles when defending similar pending court cases regarding the MACP status of LDCE-promoted Postal Assistants.
• Circles are instructed to use the findings of this case—that LDCE entry is a promotion—to contest claims from other employees seeking to treat it as a direct entry for financial benefits.
(DG (P)No. 4-7/MACPS/2019-PCC dated 29.12.2025)