ORDER : 1. By way of these writ petitions, the Central Government has assailed the judgment and order the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) whereby CAT has allowed the Original Application preferred by the applicants/respondents herein relying on judgment of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11709/2013, Union of India vs. Har Govind Sharma, decided on 10.08.2015 which was followed by the Karnataka High Court and other high Court against which SLP was preferred which was also dismissed. The order of Supreme Court dismissing the SLP (C) No.4848/2016, on 16.8.2016, reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Delay condoned. We see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the question of law is kept open.” 2. The said order was also placed on record and the review against the same was again preferred which came to be rejected on 13.09.2017, and the order reads as under: “Application for oral hearing is rejected. There is an inordinate delay of 265 days in filing the Review Petition. We are not satisfied by the explanation offered for the same. The Review Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. We have perused the Review Petition and the connected papers. Even on merits, we do not find any error in the order impugned, much less an apparent error on the face of the record, so as to call for its review. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the subsequent judgment of Principal Seat Jodhpur passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3968/2008, Ramkaran Kumhar vs. Union of India and Ors. Decided on 31.5.2016 considering the case of Har Govind Sharma vs. Union of India, D.B. CW No.11709/2013, has taken view as under: “8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Postal Assistants do not have multiple channel of promotion, they have only one channel of promotion to the post of LSG and from LSG to HSG II. Decided on 31.5.2016 considering the case of Har Govind Sharma vs. Union of India, D.B. CW No.11709/2013, has taken view as under: “8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Postal Assistants do not have multiple channel of promotion, they have only one channel of promotion to the post of LSG and from LSG to HSG II. It is submitted that the promotion earned by competitive examination on the post of Inspector of Posts is open to all and sundry grades fulfilling the requisite eligibility condition and it cannot be construed in regular line/channel of promotion for Postal Assistants. Learned counsel submitted that the Inspector of Posts is not functional promotion post for the post of Postal Assistant and therefore, one who is holding the post of Postal Assistant cannot be granted financial upgradation in the scale meant for post of Inspector of Posts as per para 7 of conditions for grant of ACP benefits and thus, the Tribunal has apparently erred in treating the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Posts as regular promotion so as to deny him the consideration for grant of first financial up-gradation on completion of 12 years of service on the post of Inspector of Posts. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this court dated 10.8.15 rendered in “Union of India & Ors. vs. Har Govind Sharma” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11709/13 and 22 others). 9. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the ACP Scheme, it is nowhere provided that promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts through limited Departmental Competitive Examination shall be treated as direct entry. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the clarification no.8 and 24 (a) issued by the Department of Personnel & Training vide Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, which clarifies that promotion through departmental examinations are to be treated as promotion for the purpose of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the clarification no.8 and 24 (a) issued by the Department of Personnel & Training vide Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, which clarifies that promotion through departmental examinations are to be treated as promotion for the purpose of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme. It is submitted that the regular line of promotion of Postal Assistant is to LSG, HSG II and HSG I but they are also eligible to appear in the limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts and therefore, the same has to be treated as promotion for the purpose of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme and the past services to be counted for granting ACP. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Posts has to be treated as regular promotion in terms of ACP Scheme and thus, the petitioner having availed one promotion, is entitled for consideration for grant of benefits of second upgradation on completion of 24 years of service under the ACP Scheme. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, the Inspector of Posts and Inspector of RMS were merged into a single cadre and thus, the new combined cadre of Inspector of Posts came into existence. As per the provisions of the Department of Posts Inspector of Posts Recruitment Rules, 2001 (for short “the Rules”), the posts of Inspector of Posts are required to be filled in, in the ratio of 33.34% by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission and 66.66% by way of promotion through limited Departmental Competitive Examination. It is true that the Inspector of Posts by way of promotion is not recruited from a single lower cadre/grade/scale of the Postal Assistant only but, from among various cadres/grade/scale like Stenographers, LDC, Staff of Director of Postal Account also, but then, on that account, the channel of promotion provided, may be by way of limited Departmental Competitive Examination, shall not cease to be a channel of promotion provided to the employees holding the posts specified. In other words, merely because, the post of Inspector of Posts by promotion is filled in by way of limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the employees holding the posts specified, their promotion to the post cannot be treated as direct entry. A bare perusal of the ACP Scheme and the clarification issued by the Government of India, makes it abundantly clear that for grant of two financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, the entire government service of an employee shall be counted against regular promotion including the promotion through limited Departmental Competitive Examination availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as direct recruit. We are of the considered opinion that where the rules specifically provides for promotion quota, may be to be filled in by way of limited Departmental Competitive Examination, the promotions made by the method specified as aforesaid, has to be counted as promotion for the purpose of ACP Scheme. Thus, the petitioner herein, who has already availed one regular promotion shall be entitled for consideration of his case for the purpose of second financial up-gradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. 12. Coming to the Bench decision of this court in Har Govind's case (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noticed that in the said case, where the employees had entered into services of the respondent therein on being appointed as Mail Guards/Extra Departmental Agents/Gram Dak Sewaks and while in service, faced process of selection for appointment to the post of Sorting Assistants/Postal Assistants and were appointed on the said posts, in absence of any provision under the Rules, showing that the appointment to the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant are made by way of promotion, the court held that such appointment may be by way of limited Competitive Examination has to be treated as appointment by direct recruitment. 13. 13. As noticed hereinabove, in the instant case, it is specifically provided under the Rules that 66.66% posts of the Inspector of Posts shall be filled in by way of promotion through limited Departmental Competitive Examination and thus, the Bench decision of this court in Har Govind's case (supra) does not help the petitioner in any manner.” and contended that in view of statutory rules which could not be pointed out in case of Har Govind Sharma’s case (supra), the Rules which are called Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Postmen/Mailguards) Recruitment Rules, 1969 where Appendix thereto, clearly provides as under: APPENDIX 12 Rules for recruitment to the Cadre of Postmen, Village Postmen and Mailguards 1. Short title and commencement- (1) These rules may be called the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Postmen/Mailguards) Recruitment Rules, 1969. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Application- These rules shall apply to the posts of Postmen/Mailguards as specified in column 1 of the Schedule annexed hereto. 3. Classification and Scales of pay- The classification of the said posts and the scales of pay attached thereto shall be specified in columns 2 and 3 of the said Schedule. 4. Method of recruitment, age limit and other qualifications- The method of recruitment to the said posts, age limits, qualifications and other matters relating to them shall be specified in columns 4 to 12 of the aforesaid Schedule: Provided that the upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion may be relaxed in the case of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time. 5. Disqualifications- No Person, (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or (b) who having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for appointment to any of the posts: Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this rule. 6. 6. Power to relax – where the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class of category of persons or posts. 7. Saving – Nothing in these rules, shall affect reservations and other concessions required to be provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other special categories or persons, in accordance with the orders issued by the central Government from time to time in this regard. whereunder the present respondents were promoted from Group D to Postmen. 4. Counsel for petitioners contended that the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) for The Central Government Civilian Employees whereby there shall be three financial up-gradation/s under MACPS, counted from the direct entry date on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years service respectively. In this regard Clause 1 and 3 of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) which reads as under: “1. There shall be three financial year upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the 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. 3. The financial upgradations under the MACPS would be admissible up-2 the highest grade pay Rs.12000/- in the PB-4.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the promotion prior to this a time bound scheme TBOP was available on completion 16 years of service from the entry and thereafter the beneficial cadre review was made available after 10 years or 20 years from the original recruitment which has been replaced by the present modified Scheme MACP in 2009. He has taken us to Para 5 of the Original Application which reads as under: “That the respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2010 did not reveal how the granted MACP is irregular. It would be relevant to mention here that the applicant appeared in an examination for selection to the post of Postman on centralised basis without any criteria adhered of promotion and applicants have been declared as selected for the post of Postman. Therefore direct entry into service of Postman is not promotion rather it is selection. It would be relevant to mention here that the applicant appeared in an examination for selection to the post of Postman on centralised basis without any criteria adhered of promotion and applicants have been declared as selected for the post of Postman. Therefore direct entry into service of Postman is not promotion rather it is selection. It is even admitted by the respondent which is evident from letter dated 13.04.2010 whereby the respondent entered entry into service as Postal Assistant and completed service in PA cadre. The respondent is determined to deprive the legal right which is against the mandate of the Constitution of India. The pay grade is fixed on 2800/- where as it ought to be 4200/- in accordance with the granted promotion of MACP and the respondents have granted MACP vide letter dated 13.04.2010. The copy of letter dated 13.04.2010 is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A/5.” which has been replied more particularly by Para 3.5 of the Reply which reads as under: “3.5 That the contents of para-3.5 of the Original Application are not admitted, hence denied. As submitted above, the applicants were initially appointed as Group ‘D’ and thereafter, promoted as Postman, however, promotion on the post of Postman is by way of selection, therefore, the contention of the applicant that, his date of promotion as postman has to be treated direct entry date for the purpose of MACP is totally wrong and misconceived. It is also pertinent to mentione here that, in Show Cause notice dated 28.12.2010, it was mentioned that as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter no.4-7/MACPs/2009-PCC dated 18.09.2010 the Applicants were not entitled for the benefit of 2nd MACP and the referred letter was self speaking hence it is not correct that the respondents did not reveal that how the granted MACP is irregular. It is further submitted that, as per MACPs and clarification issued in this regard, for the purpose of three financial up-gradations under MACP, 10, 20 and 30 years of service has to be counted from the date of direct entry grade. The direct entry grade of the Applicants is Group-D while they have wrongly interpreted the direct entry grade as Postman. All the three Applicants promoted in Postman & Postal Assistant Cadre and got one financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme after completion of 16 years service in P.A. Cadre i.e. got three financial up-gradations prior to 01.09.2008. The direct entry grade of the Applicants is Group-D while they have wrongly interpreted the direct entry grade as Postman. All the three Applicants promoted in Postman & Postal Assistant Cadre and got one financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme after completion of 16 years service in P.A. Cadre i.e. got three financial up-gradations prior to 01.09.2008. Thus, they were/are not entitled for 2nd financial up-gradation under MACPs, therefore, such irregular benefit granted to them has been withdrawn after serving show cause notices to them. Thus, the action of the respondents regarding withdrawal of benefit is in order and is according to law/MACPs and the applicants have not been deprived from their legal right. and also Para 1 of the Original Application which reads as under: “Second up-gradation was introduced in 1991 as BCR, which was applicable to the employees on completion of 26 years regular services in a cadre. Both the schemes of TBOP and BCR were separately applicable to each cadre.” and further contended in view of the office memorandum dated 18.9.2009 which we have already reproduced hereinabove. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: 6.1 Union of India and Ors. vs. D. Shivakumar and Anr., D.B. CWP No.30629/2014, decided on 04.02.2015 wherein it has been observed as under: “9. What the Department had done is to adjust the appointment of the first respondent as the Postal Assistant on 12.11.1977, as the first financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression-I. This is clearly erroneous in view of the fact that the appointment as Postal Assistant was not granted to the first respondent after mere completion of 10 years in the Cadre of Postman. From the Cadre of Postman, to which, the first respondent got appointed on 22.9.1973, he participated in a selection to the post of Postal Assistant and got appointed. Therefore, to adjust the said appointment against Modified Assured Career Progression-II, is clearly erroneous. Once that error is removed, it will be clear that the first respondent would be entitled to three modified assured career progressions for every ten years. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in directing the Department not to take into account the appointment granted to the post of Postal Assistant and to adjust it against Modified Assured Career Progression-I. 10. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in directing the Department not to take into account the appointment granted to the post of Postal Assistant and to adjust it against Modified Assured Career Progression-I. 10. Moreover, it is to be pointed out that even the second modified assured career progression was granted under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme only after 16 years and the third is said to have been granted after 26 years. If the first appointment is adjusted against Modified Assured Career Progression-I, this could not have actually happened. For doing so, the Department has counted the first appointment as 12.11.1977. Therefore, they cannot do so for the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme in a different manner. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.” 6.2 Union of India and Ors. vs. D. Shivakumar, SLP (C) No.4848/2016, decided on 16.8.2016 wherein it has been observed as under: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Delay condoned. We see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the question of law is kept open.” 6.3 Union of India and Ors. vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burney, W.P. (C) No.4131/2014, decided on 5.8.2017 wherein Delhi High Court has observed as under: “8. There is no magic in the use of the expression "Promotion" or "Direct Recruitment"; whether, in fact, the mode of entry to the service is through direct recruitment or promotion would certainly be dependent on facts of each case and the structure of the Rules. If one analyzes Rule 3, it would be apparent that recruitment is through "a competitive examination which will be open" to both departmental candidates and outside candidates. During the course of submissions, the Union of India has emphasized that syllabus for departmental candidates was prescribed in 1964; even this fact nowhere indicates that a differential treatment is accorded to direct recruits who are drawn from the open market. The absence of any clearly stipulated and defined feeder post for promotion by way of seniority, or any other known method like seniority-cum-merit, selection etc., the mode prescribed in Rule 3 (a) (i.e., departmental candidates also having to W.P.(C) No. 4131/2014 Page 6 qualify in the competitive examination, along with outsiders) in this Court's opinion clinches the matter. The absence of any clearly stipulated and defined feeder post for promotion by way of seniority, or any other known method like seniority-cum-merit, selection etc., the mode prescribed in Rule 3 (a) (i.e., departmental candidates also having to W.P.(C) No. 4131/2014 Page 6 qualify in the competitive examination, along with outsiders) in this Court's opinion clinches the matter. To that effect, the CAT's decision that the entry of departmental candidates to the cadre of Postal Assistant is by way of direct recruitment is unexceptionable. We consequently affirm the findings of the CAT in the impugned order. 9. For the above reasons, no interference is called for with the impugned order of CAT. The petition is accordingly dismissed.” where the remand order is stayed by Principal Seat, Jodhpur judgment. 7. Counsel for the respondent Mr. S.P. Singh and Ms. Kavita Bhati have taken us to the record and contended that petitioners are not addressing proper prayer in view of their own letter dated 25.04.2011. The post of Postmaster was not promotion post which is clear in view of the clarification made by the petitioner. He has also placed reliance on following subsequent decisions: 7.1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11709/2013, Union of India and Ors. vs. Har Govind Sharma and many others, decided on 10.8.2015 wherein it has been observed as under: “Having considered the argument advanced we do not find any merit with the same. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on asking again and again failed to point out any provision for promotion to the post of Postman/Sorting Assistant. On the other hand, from perusal of the orders of appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant, it is apparent that the respondent original applicants faced an examination, may that be a limited competitive examination, i.e. nothing but direct recruitment. Their joining as Postal Assistants was not at all in the nature of promotion, hence their services for the grant of benefits under modified assured career progression has to be counted only from the date they were appointed as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants. The services rendered by them on earlier post prior to their appointment as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants are absolutely inconsequential for the purpose of grant of modified assured career progression. The services rendered by them on earlier post prior to their appointment as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants are absolutely inconsequential for the purpose of grant of modified assured career progression. At the cost of repetition it shall be appropriate to mention that the petitioners failed to point out any provision for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting. Assistant by way of promotion and to point out any order of appointment making appointment of the original applicants on the post concerned by way of promotion. The writ petitions, thus, are having no merit, hence dismissed. The orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in respective original applications stand affirmed.” 7.2 D.B. Writ Review Petition No.171/2016, Union of India and Ors. vs. S.N. Singh Bhati and many other connected matters, decided on 3.1.2018 wherein it has been observed as under: “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 no merit in the review petitions which are dismissed and since we are dismissing the review petitions on merits we are not going into the issue whether sufficient cause has been shown in the delay to be condoned.” 7.3 Union of India and Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar and Anr., Writ Petition No.30629 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014, decided on 4.2.2015 where the learned counsel placed reliance, referred herein above. 7.4 Union of India and Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4848/2016 decided on 16.8.2016 where the learned counsel placed reliance, referred herein above. 7.5 Union of India and Ors. 7.4 Union of India and Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4848/2016 decided on 16.8.2016 where the learned counsel placed reliance, referred herein above. 7.5 Union of India and Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar, Review Petition (C) No.1939 of 2017 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4848 of 2016 decided on 13.9.2017 wherein it has been observed as under: “Application for oral hearing is rejected. There is an inordinate delay of 265 days in filing the Review Petition. We are not satisfied by the explanation offered for the same. The Review Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. We have perused the Review Petition and the connected papers. Even on merits, we do not find any error in the order impugned, much less an apparent error on the face of the record, so as to call for its review. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.” 7.6 The Union of India and Ors. vs. Shri Basanna Nayak, Writ Petition No.200807/2016 (S-CAT), decided on 20.9.2016 wherein it has been observed as under: 6. The contention now advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that appointment of petitioner for the post of Postman and WP No.200807/2016 Postal Assistant were not by way of direct recruitment but were by way of promotion. We are unable to appreciate this contention. Indeed as per Annexure-A2 order where under appointment has been made to the cadre of Postman it is clearly mentioned that the appointment formalities like verification of caste and educational qualifications etc. shall be completed as usual before issuance of orders of appointment. There is no mention made with regard to promotion of the respondent to the post of Postman. A reading of Annexure-A2 discloses that it was not a case of promotion but was a case of direct recruitment. 7. In so far as appointment to the post of Postal Assistant, the findings of the Tribunal are very clear inasmuch as the recruitment was made after conducting a limited departmental competitive examination and that there was nothing to show that WP No.200807/2016 respondent was promoted from the cadre of Postman to the next cadre of Postal Assistant. 8. Hence, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. 8. Hence, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. We do not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded and conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Therefore, there being no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. 7.7 Union of India and Ors. vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Anr., D.B. Writ Review No.181/2016 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16150/2013 and other connected matters, decided on 15.2.2018 wherein it has been observed as under: “The applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petitions are condoned. The applications u/s.5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. These review petitions have been filed seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 10.12.2015, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed on the basis of judgment rendered by Principal Seat Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11709/2013, Union of India & Ors. vs. Har Govid Sharma. Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General at the outset fairly submitted that the review petition was filed at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Union of India & Ors. vs. S.N. Singh Bhati, D.B. Writ Review Petition No.171/2016 along with other 25 connected matters seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2015, whereby 24 writ petitions were dismissed. The Principal Seat, Jodhpur has dismissed the review petitions and upheld the judgment passed by the Central Administrative (4 of 5) [WRW-181/2016] Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in the following terms: "6. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that similar is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 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. Sivakuma was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16th August, 2016 after condoning the delay. Review sought of the order dated 16th August, 2016 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 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 no merit in the review petitions which are dismissed and since we are dismissing the review petitions on merits we are not going into the issue whether sufficient cause has been shown in the delay to be condoned." We, therefore, do not find any merit in these review petitions. For the same reason, the present review petitions are dismissed.” 8. In that view of the matter it is contended that the judgment in Har Govind (supra) will apply and Supreme Court also rejected the review. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. We have heard counsel for both the sides. 10. Before proceeding with the matter, it is necessary to consider the salient features of the very scheme which has been subject matter of dispute, particularly its Clause 1 and 3 which have been reproduced above. 11. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the benefit will be conferred only after regular 10, 20 and 30 years service and if not promoted, the incumbent will be entitled for next up-gradation. Therefore, the respondents are promoted and taken to the higher post. The benefit of first and second scale will be given after 10 and 20 years respectively of the initial appointment. Therefore, the respondents are promoted and taken to the higher post. The benefit of first and second scale will be given after 10 and 20 years respectively of the initial appointment. They will not be entitled for the benefit of first up-gradation or promotion during 20 years of the first recruitment in between first promotion and 10 years will be considered as up-gradation under the Scheme. Even otherwise while considering the matter, the subsequent Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur considered the law and has rightly interpreted the scheme. 12. In our opinion, the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in allowing original application relying upon the judgment of Har Govind (supra) which is now diluted by the subsequent decision of Division Bench judgment. In view of the Rules, we are very clear that in view of promotion first benefit it to be granted from 10 years from the promotional post or from the new recruitment taken as confirmed. In that view of matter, the petitions deserve to be allowed. 13. The very object of Modified Assured Promotion Scheme is to avoid stagnation. If in every 10 years any employee is not granted any promotion, he will be given selection grade. In this way, the employee will be entitled for three selection grades. If he is not being given a promotion within 10 years, he will be given next promotion scale and if after 10 years and upto 20 years he is not getting any promotion then next benefit will be given to him on completion of 20 years from the date of appointment and thereafter if he is not getting further promotion till 30 years, he will be entitled for benefit of promotional scale after completion of30 years. The original applicants will be granted the benefits accordingly. 14. These petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. 15. Copy of this order be placed in other connected matters.