Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3314
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH, J, HON’BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, A
Nand Lal Ram – Appellant
Versus
Textiles – Respondent
O.A./1023/2022
Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, Shri M.P Mishra
Non-communication of adverse ACRs violates principles of natural justice, impacting eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACP scheme.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme - Applicants sought 3rd financial upgradation denied due to ACR grading - Court emphasized the necessity of communicating ACR entries for fairness and transparency in public administration. (Paras 10, 11, 20, 21)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Non-communication of adverse ACRs violates principles of natural justice, impacting promotion and financial benefits. (Paras 11, 20)
(C) Discrimination - Denial of upgradation to senior employees while juniors received benefits creates an unjust anomaly. (Paras 6, 21)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, having served for over 24 years, were denied 3rd financial upgradation despite juniors receiving it. They claimed this was discriminatory and violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the denial of upgradation to applicant No.1 was unjust due to uncommunicated ACRs, while applicant No.2's claim was denied due to lack of representation against communicated adverse remarks.
Issues: The main issues were the communication of ACR entries and the justification for denying financial upgradation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that uncommunicated adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon, and applicants must be given a fair chance to contest their grading.
Result: OA partly allowed; applicant No.1 granted 3rd financial upgradation, while applicant No.2's claim was denied.
ORDER
BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASAH -VII, MEMBER (J)
By means of present original application, applicants have sought following relief (s):-
(a) Quash the impugned order dated 12.8.2022 and further direct the respondents to grant 3rd financial upgradation to the applicants in pay scale of 15600-39100 PB-3, G.P 7600 w.e.f. 01.08.2008 with all consequential benefits including arrears of gratuity, leave encashment etc. after re-fixation of pay and pension along with 24% penal interest from the date due to the date of actual payment, recoverable from the erring official.
(b) Pass such other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper and expedient in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as in the interest of justice.
(c) Award cost of the original application to the applicants”.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant No. 1 was initially appointed as Junior Field Officer which was subsequently re- designated as Carpet Training Officer in 1978 and applicant No.2 was initially appointed as C.T.O on 30.03.1978. They were declared surplus and thereafter they were redeployed as Handicraft Promotion Officer in the year 2004. Both the applicants were allowed 1st ACP in 1999 in the pay scale of Rs. 6600-10500 and on completion of 24 years of service, they were allowed 2nd ACP in 2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200/- and thereafter the said pay scale was upgraded to Rs. 15600-39100 GP 6600 in the 6th CPC. The applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 were at serial No. 16 and 17 respectively in the seniority list. Most of juniors, who were placed between serial No. 18 to 69 have been allowed 3rd financial upgradation in GP Rs.7600/- . Both the applicants were retired from service till date they have not been granted 3rd financial upgradation. They have approached several times to the respondents. Thereafter on the request of the applicants, Assistant Director (Admn. 1) New Delhi wrote a letter on 02.11.2011 to Regional Director, Central Region, Lucknow stating therein that the 3rd MACP of applicant No.1 could not be processed for want of ACRs whereas applicant NO.2 was not found fit for grant of 3rd MACP. Both the applicants have moved representations to the competent authority for grant of 3rd MACP. Due to non-redressal of their grievances, applicants filed original application No. 1076 of 2018 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the claim of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP of the applicants afresh in accordance with rules. In compliance of direction of the Tribunal, respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant by order dated 12.08.2022. Being aggrieved, applicants filed present original application.
3. On notice, respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been submitted that the grant of financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Scheme are personal to the employees. The question of seniority has no role for grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme. Apart from this, as envisaged in the DoP&T OM dated 9.8.1999, for grant of financial upgradations under ACP Scheme up to the grade pay of Rs.6600/-, the bench mark is 'Good' The applicants were granted 1st & 2nd financial upgradations under ACP Scheme as they were having the desired bench mark as envisaged in the DoP&T OM dated 9.8.1999. It is further submitted that the case of applicant for grant of 3rd financial upgradation was placed before the DSC held on 15.6.2012. The DSC did not recommend their case for grant of financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.7600/- as matter of applicant No.1 was kept in abeyance for want of ACRs. They have submitted that as per the DoP&T O.M. No.21011/1/2010-Estt.A dated 13th April, 2010, prior to the reporting period 2008-09, only the adverse remarks in the ACR had to be communicated to the concerned officer for representation, if any to be considered by the competent authority. The MACP Scheme is introduced in the year 2009 and
