Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3777
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR M. SWAMINATHAN, J, MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, A
Ashish Kumar Khare – Appellant
Versus
Department Of Fisheries – Respondent
O.A./42/2022
Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC
The denial of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on arbitrary decisions and lack of justification violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Applicant sought financial upgradation from 2009, which was denied based on ACR/APAR grades being below the benchmark - The Screening Committee recommended upgradation effective from 01.04.2013 without justifying the delay - The court found the decision arbitrary and in violation of natural justice principles. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 14)
(B) Natural Justice - The principle of natural justice was violated when the R-2 acted as both recommending and accepting authority, leading to an arbitrary decision. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Delay in Upgradation - The court emphasized that authorities should not benefit from their own arbitrary conduct and delays. (Paras 5, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, appointed in 1999, was due for financial upgradation under the MACP scheme in 2009 but was denied due to unsatisfactory ACR/APAR grades. The applicant challenged the decision, claiming it was arbitrary and unjust.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a valid case against the respondents' decision.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the Screening Committee's decision and the application of natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the decision to deny upgradation was arbitrary and violated Article 14, emphasizing the need for proper consideration and justification for delays.
Result: OA dismissed, with no order as to costs.
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
(1) Declare the office order No.1-5/2010 E.II, dated 08.12.2020, Annexure A-1 as non-est and illegal and set aside the Annexure A-1 to the extent it denied the benefit st of the 1 financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. due date in the year 2009 to the applicant.
(2) Call for the original records related to issue of the Annexure A-14 & Annexure A-16 and declare the Annexure A-14 & Annexure A-16 issued by R-1, dated 12.11.2021 and R-5 dated Nil as non-est, void and set aside the same
(3) Direct the R-1 to grant the benefit of the 1 financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme to the applicant w.e.f. due date in the year 2009.
(4) Direct the R-1 to convene the review meeting of the Screening Committee and consider the applicant’s case nd for grant of 2 financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme within the stipulated period of time as may be decided by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
(5) Pass any order/orders or directions as deemed just, fit appropriate and necessary in fact and circumstances of the case
(6) Award the cost of the application.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants are as follows:
The applicant, appointed as a Junior Translation Officer in the R-1 office on 04.02.1999, was due for consideration under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme for a financial upgradation in 2009. However, the Department did not consider the applicant’s case, and the R- 3 refused the request due to the applicant's ACR/APAR grades for the years 2006-2008 and 2008-2009 being below the "Good" benchmark. The applicant has challenged this decision in OA No. 852 of 2017, which is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The applicant became eligible for the second financial upgradation in 2019. Once again, the case was not considered, and the applicant's representation was ignored by the R-2. Meanwhile, the R-2 issued an order on 08.12.2020, granting the applicant the first financial upgradation under the MACP scheme, effective from 01.04.2013, despite the applicant’s eligibility for 2009. The Screening Committee, which met on 07.12.2020, recommended the applicant for the first financial upgradation. Despite this, the committee decided to grant the upgradation from 01.04.2013 instead of the due date in 2009, without providing any reasoning for the delay. The R-2, acting as both the Chairman of the Screening Committee and the Accepting Authority, violated the provisions outlined in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the relevant guidelines. The R-2 made a decision based on the committee’s recommendation without fully considering the applicant’s eligibility. Therefore, the decision to deny the upgradation from 2009 is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The applicant submitted representations on 15.12.2020 and 07.07.2021 to the R-1 requesting amendments to the decision. However, the applicant received no response. The applicant then filed OA No. 683 of 2021, seeking directions to have the representations considered. Despite this, the R-1 issued Annexure A-16 on 12.11.2021, disregarding the applicant’s concerns and copying the R-5’s comments, making the decision arbitrary and unjust. Since the R-1 issued Annexure A-16 without considering the applicant's relevant points, and ignored the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 05.08.2021, the decision is arbitrary and unjust. The applicant has no effective remedy other than to seek justice from this Hon'ble Tribunal through the present OA.
3. The applicant contends that the Screening Committee, which met on 07.12.2020, found the applicant eligible for the first financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Therefore, the Committee should have recommended the grant of the first financial upgradation effective from the due date in 2009, instead of from 01.04.2013. As such, th
