IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement to communicate ACR gradings to employees is a legal obligation that ensures transparency and fairness, allowing employees to contest their evaluations and improve their performance.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The grievance raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is pertaining to denial of MACP. The primary contention is that such denial is on the basis of certain gradings in the ACRs which according to the petitioner were not communicated.

2. I have heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Chakraborty, learned CGC, who has also filed affidavit-in-opposition on 23.11.2023.

3. Ms. Bora, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was initially enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 23.01.2002 as Warrant Officer / Clerk. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after completion of 20 years of qualifying service as on 23.01.2022, he was deprived of the 2nd MACP benefit.

4. The specific case of the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel, is that the grant of MACPs were based on the gradings of the ACRs and such gradings were not communicated. It is submitted that communication of the gradings in ACRs in a mandatory requirement and a legal obligation by which the employee gets an opportunity to file representation for upgrading the gradings as well as to improve his performance.

5. The learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions on the aspect of the requirement to communicate the gradings of ACRs:-

i. Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725

ii. Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2019 (4) SCC 276.

iii. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566.

6. Per contra, Shri Chakraborty, the learned CGC has submitted that the gradings of the ACRs of the petitioner were not the sole reason for the impugned action. He submits that the grant of MACPs to the other incumbents were done by following the procedure established in law and in a fair manner and none of the said incumbents have been made parties. He has also highlighted the aspect that it is not only the petitioner but certain other persons like him have been denied grant of MACPs in the exercise performed.

7. The rival submissions have been duly considered.

8. Grant of MACPs is dependent on various factors out of which the gradings in the ACRs is one of the major factors. That brings us to the aspect of the importance of such gradings and the legal obligation of the employer to communicate the gradings in terms of the settled law.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), after considering the earlier judgments holding the field, had reiterated the requirement of an opportunity to be granted to an employee to submit representation in respect of the ACRs. For ready reference, the relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow :

“10. In Dev Dutt v. Union of India a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that fairness in public administration and transparency require that all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must be communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the employee to make a representation for upgradation. The view of the Court was that non-communication of entries in the ACRs has civil consequences since it may affect the chances of the employee for promotion and other benefits. A failure to communicate would be arbitrary. This Court held that these directions would apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State, in addition to government servants.

11. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India affirmed the correctness of the view taken in Dev Dutt noting that an earlier three-Judge Bench in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India had adopted the same principle.

12. The three-Judge Bench in Sukhdev Singh, held thus :

‘8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communica