Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Imteyaz Ahmed Siddiqui, S/o. Nazeeb Ahmed Siddiqui – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
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 perfor
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.
The Court established that non-communication of ACR gradings violates principles of natural justice and affects an employee's rights to representation and benefits.
The court established that the non-communication of ACR gradings violates principles of natural justice and fairness, impacting an employee's promotion and benefits.
The Court established that non-communication of ACR gradings violates principles of natural justice and fairness in public administration.
The Court established that communication of ACR gradings is mandatory for fairness and transparency, enabling employees to contest their evaluations.
Uncommunicated ACR entries violate the right to fair representation under Article 14 of the Constitution, necessitating communication of all gradings to public servants for promotion processes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
