The Tribunal ruled that missing ACRs should not disadvantage the employee in promotion assessments, declaring contested periods as 'NO APAR PERIOD' for MACP eligibility.

ORDER

Per:- Rajveer Singh Verma, Member [J]

1. The instant OA has been filed for the following relief: -

“(i) The applicant humbly prays that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicant for 1^st MACP and grant the 1st MACP with effect from 28.02.2011in the Grade Pay Rs. 2800.

(ii) The applicant further prays that a cost of Rs 25000 be awarded against the respondents for intentionally not granting the 1st MACP and also cost of litigation accrued due to malice intention.

(iii) Any relief/reliefs may be granted to the applicant for ends of the justice.”

2. The facts of the case as narrated by counsel for applicant in this OA are as follows: -

i. That the applicant was initially appointed as Catering Assistant at Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya on 28.02.2001 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-6000(Revised Grade Pay Rs. 2400). Now the applicant is working as Catering Assistant at Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya, Buxar.

ii. That a DPC was held on 15.12.2012 for granting the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme to non-teaching staffs of JNV on completion of their requisite period of service up to 31.03.2012. The applicant had already completed 10 years qualified service on 27.02.2011 i.e. prior to cut of date i.e. 31.03.2012 and also having 3 years ACR without any adverse remark as it was never communicated to him. Therefore, he was to be considered for 1^st MACP in the DPC held on 15.12.2012. But his name was not sent for consideration in the DPC meeting whereas his juniors namely J.K. Singh (Sr.No.37), R.K. Singh (Sr.No.38) and Sanjay Kumar (Sr. No. 39) had been granted MACP vide letter dated 01.01.2013.

iii. That applicant made a representation on 07.02.2013 (Annexure-A/2) for granting the 1^st MACP After making representation for consideration of 1^st MACP w.e.f. 28.02.2011, the office of Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidayalaya Samiti, Patna directed Mr. Anjum Arshi, the Principal, JNV, Buxar vide letter dated 01.07.2013 to provide the information for consideration of the MACP to the applicant. In pursuance to the letter dated 01.07.2013 the Mr. Anjum Arshi, the Principal, JNV, Buxar had submitted the list of eligible non-teaching staff vide letter dated 27/29.08.2013 (Annexure-A/3) in which the applicant was single eligible employee, for considering him for the 1st MACP. Vide letter dated 11.11.2013 applicant was directed to submit duly filled performa of ACR for five years period i.e. 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11and 2011-12. That applicant had already submitted the dully filled Performa of his ACRs for period of2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11.

iv. That applicant was once again directed vide letter dated08.04.2014 to submit dully filled Performa of ACR for three years period i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 for considering him for the 1" MACP. Applicant submitted the dully filled Performa of his ACRs for period of 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 vide letter dated 10.04.2014 but the Reporting Officer, had given general remarks on the performance of the applicant and the reviewing officer had made assessment of the remark and he made entry "Average" in ACRs of the applicant for period of 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since the Average is being treated as adverse entry, the applicant had made representation but same was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 16.09.2014.

v. That it has been further stated by the applicant that denial of MACP on the wrong notion that three years ACRs for period of 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 were average is illegal and arbitrary and also against Rules. The MACP of the applicant could not be hold up on the ground of average grading in the ACRs as there are