Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The singular question involved in these cases is whether the respondents are disentitled to the benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘MACP Scheme’ for short), solely because they had been appointed as Postal Assistants, after having served as Postmen.

2. Sri.T.V.Vinu – learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the findings of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (CAT), allowing the afore benefit to the respondents herein is in error because, it was done prior to a learned Division Bench of this Court finding to the contrary, in Union of India and Others v. S.Sivadasan and Others [MANU/KE/1633/2020]. He contended that, even the High Court of Madras has taken a similar view in N.Selvan V. Union of India and Others [MANU/TN/4417/2022]; and hence, that the impugned order is in error.

3. Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Arun Thampi – learned counsel for the respondents in some of these matters; and Sri.M.A.Shafik – learned counsel for the respondents in the others, argued that the afore submissions of Sri.T.V.Vinu obtain no legs to stand on because, the Honourable Supreme Court has already dismissed SLPs against judgments delivered by various High Courts, finding persons similarly situated not to be entitled to the ‘MACP Scheme’ in the afore scenario; further adding that, in cases where learned High Courts have rejected such claims and parties have approached the Honourable Supreme Court, it has allowed such SLPs. They produced before us the copy of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4432/2019 and connected matters in substantiation; and prayed that a different view be not adopted by us.

4. We have gone through the order of the Honourable Supreme Court mentioned above and since it requires a full reading, we extract its relevant portions as under:

                  1) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the following Special Leave Petitions on the same issue have been dismissed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court:

                 

                

                  2) Considering the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the present civil appeal and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed, leaving the question of law open.

                  3) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                  W.P. (C) No. 611/2020

                  1) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking direction for implementation of the judgments dated 22.05.20121, 13.09.20122 and 09.05.20133 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench ("CAT") which has been upheld up to this Court; however, has not been complied with. It shall be noted that the contempt petition filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the CAT because on similar issue, the SLPS and Civil Appeals were pending.

                  2) Since the other SLPs and Civil Appeals have been dismissed by this Court, therefore, it is suffice to observe that the directions, as issued by the CAT and the High Court, be complied with in true sense and sprit as expeditiously as possible not later than three months.

                  3) With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                  Civil Appeal No. Of 2026

                  (@SLP(C) No. 11997 of 2019)

                  Civil Appeal No. of 2026

                  (@SLP(C) No. 26561/2019)

                  1) Leave granted.

                  2) In consequence of the aforesaid order of dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 2019 and connected matters, the impugned orders of the respective High Courts stand set aside. Consequently, these appeals stand allowed with direction to the respondents to comply with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                  Civil Appeal No.  Of 2026

                  (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 38239 of 2025)

                  1) Leave granted.

                  2) In view of the aforesaid order of dismissal in Civil Appeal No.4432 of 2019, the impugned order is set aside and the present appeal stands allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of MACP to the appellant. The needful be done as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

5. It is ineluctable that the Honourable Supreme Court has approved the proposition, that the Postal Assistants before it – who are identically placed as the respondents herein – were entitled to the benefits of the ‘MACP Scheme’ even when the question of law has been left open.

6. In our respectful view, what the Honourable Supreme Court has meant can only be that when it comes to the benefits under the ‘MACP Scheme’, the persons like the party respondents would be entitled to it; but in the event any other benefit is sought, the entitlement would depend upon the question of law to be then decided. Any other interpretation – as is beseeched by Sri.T.V.Vinu – would lead to a situation where similarly placed persons in one part of the country would obtain benefit; while the others would not. We are certain that the order of the Honourable Supreme Court can never be construed to such effect, particularly because its observations and views are binding on all courts in India.

In such circumstances, following the observations and holdings of the Honourable Supreme Court, we dismiss these Original Petitions.