Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Madhushri Maity Alise Madhushri Das vs Esic on 8 May, 2024
1
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08.05.2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
O.A. 350/00646/2020
Madhushri Maity @ Madhushri Das,
Wife of Taraknath Das, aged about 39 years, working as Staff
Nurse at ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital & ODC (E.Z.)/ Joka at
Pediatric Department, residing at 9, North Basudevpur,
Madhyapally, Belgharia, Kolkata- 700056.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Rafi Marg, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Hqrs. Office at CIG Marg, Panchadeep Bhawan, New
Delhi-110002.
3. The Additional Commissioner & Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Grant
Lane, Kolkata- 700012.
4. The Medical Superintendent, ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital
& ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata- 700104.
5. The Dy. Medical Superintendent, ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC
Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata-
700104.
6. The Assistant Director (Admn.), ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC
Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata-
700104.
2
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020
7. The Assistant Nursing Superintendent, ESI- PGIMSR &
ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka,
Kolkata- 700104.
.........Respondents
O.A. 350/00966/2020
Dolan Bhowmick (Mandal),
Wife of Pronay Bhowmick, Daughter of Late Nilmoni Mandal,
aged about 38 years, working as Staff Nurse at ESI-PGIMSR &
ESIC Hospital & ODC (E.Z.), residing at Village- Bhasa 14 No., PO
and PS- Bishnupur, District- South 24 PGS- 743503.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Rafi Marg, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Hqrs. Office at CIG Marg, Panchadeep Bhawan, New
Delhi-110002.
3. The Additional Commissioner & Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Grant
Lane, Kolkata- 700012.
4. The Medical Superintendent, ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital
& ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata- 700104.
5. Dr. Parimal Maji, The Dy. Medical Superintendent, ESI-
PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road,
Joka, Kolkata-700104.
6. The Assistant Director (Admn.), ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC
Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata-
700104.
7. Mira Ganguly, The Assistant Nursing Superintendent, ESI-
PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road,
Joka, Kolkata- 700104.
.........Respondents
3
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020
O.A. 350/01051/2020
Surojit Biswas,
Son of Laxmikanta Biswas, aged about 38 years, working as
Nursing Orderly at ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital & ODC
(E.Z.)/Joka, residing at 160/6, Vidyasagar Sarani, PO- Barisha,
PS- Haridevpur, Kolkata- 700008.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Rafi Marg, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Hqrs. Office at CIG Marg, Panchadeep Bhawan, New
Delhi-110002.
3. The Additional Commissioner & Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Grant
Lane, Kolkata- 700012.
4. The Medical Superintendent, ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital
& ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata- 700104.
5. Dr. Parimal Maji, The Dy. Medical Superintendent, ESI-
PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road,
Joka, Kolkata-700104.
6. The Assistant Director (Admn.), ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC
Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata-
700104.
7. Rita Sarkar, The Assistant Nursing Superintendent, ESI-
PGIMSR & ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road,
Joka, Kolkata- 700104.
8. The Medical Superintendent, ESIC Model Hospital CUM
ODC, Central Road, Opposite to MIDC Police Station, Andheri
East, Mumbai.
.........Respondents
4
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020
For The Applicant(s): Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Chowdhury, Counsel
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member Due to parity in the nature of grievance and facts pleaded, OA/350/0646/2020, OA/350/966/2020 and OA/350/1051/2020 are being heard out analogously, upon due notice, to be disposed of by this common order, with consent of all the sides.
2. The applicant in OA/350/0646/2020 has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"i) Office order being No. 412-A-11/20/MACP/2014-Estt./4051 dated 02/04.11.2019 issued by the respondent no. 6 is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the same may be quashed and thereby an order do issue directing the respondents to ignore the benchmark given in the APAR of the applicant for the year 2016-2017 and/or upgrade the same for the purpose of grant of MACP.
ii) An order do issue directing the respondents to include the name of the applicant in Office Order No. 44 of 2020 dated 18.05.2020 and/or Office Order No. 87 of 2019 dated 19.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. 6 and thereby to grant the applicant the 1st financial upgradation in the next grade pay under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 01.06.2019 at an earliest and thereby to grant all the arrears in favour of the applicant along with all consequential benefits along with revision of pay and interest accrued thereon.
iii) Grant all consequential benefits.
iv) Pass such further or other order or orders."
3. The applicant in OA/350/966/2020 has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:5
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 "i) Office order being No. 412-A-11/20/MACP/2014-Estt. dated 12.08.2020 issued by the respondent no. 6 is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the same may be quashed and thereby an order do issue directing the respondents to ignore the benchmark given in the APAR of the applicant for the year 2016-2017 and/or upgrade the same for the purpose of grant of MACP.
ii) An order do issue directing the respondents to include the name of the applicant in Office Order No. 44 of 2020 dated 18.05.2020 and/or Office Order No. 87 of 2019 dated 19.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. 6 and thereby to grant the applicant the 1st financial upgradation in the next grade pay under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 28.07.2019 at an earliest and thereby to grant all the arrears in favour of the applicant along with all consequential benefits along with revision of pay and interest accrued thereon.
iii) Grant all consequential benefits.
iv) Pass such further or other order or orders."
4. The applicant in OA/350/1051/2020 has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"i) Office order being No. 412.A.29/11/APAR(C&D)/2014/3564 dated 10/15.10.2019 issued by the respondent no. 6 is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the same may be quashed and thereby an order do issue directing the respondents to ignore the benchmark given in the APAR of the applicant for the year 2017-2018 and/or upgrade the same for the purpose of grant of MACP and promotion.
ii) An order do issue directing the respondents to include the name of the applicant in Office Order No. 46 of 2020 dated 18.05.2020 and/or Office Order No. 86of 2019 dated 19.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. 6 and thereby to grant the applicant the 1st financial upgradation in the next grade pay under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 09.06.2019 at an earliest and thereby to grant all the arrears in favour of the applicant along with all consequential benefits along with revision of pay and interest accrued thereon.
iii) Grant all consequential benefits.
iv) Pass such further or other order or orders."
5. For the sake of brevity, the facts of OA/350/0646/2020 (Madhushri Maity @ Madhushri Das) are being delineated and discussed hereunder :
5.1 The applicant joined the service of the respondent as Staff Nurse on 01.06.2009.
6
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 5.2 On 19.07.2019, respondents published a list of employees who had been granted financial upgradation under MACP scheme. The name of the applicant did not figure in that list. Respondents issued a letter on 02/04.11.2019 intimating that her case was not recommended by the Committee for financial upgradation as she did not fulfill the benchmark criteria of APAR grading for MACP. The applicant made representations to the authorities on 19.7.2019, 23.9.2019 and4.10.2019. On not getting a positive response from the respondents the applicant has filed this O.A. 6.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not aware of her grading in her APAR for 2016-17 as it was not communicated to her. It was only later that the applicant visited the Matron Office and collected the APARs for the related period. It was only after the applicant obtained the APAR of 2016-17, she became aware of the fact that she had been given 5.8 marks for the said period which was considered as 'Good' grading . Therefore she has been denied the benefit of MACP as she lacks the grading 'Very Good' in the APAR for the period 2016-17. In the other APARs considered for the grant of MACP, the applicant has the required benchmark in her APAR. Although the applicant made a detailed representation with a request to review her APAR for the year 2016-17, the same has not elicited any response. 6.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there was no complaint or charge-sheet ever against her. The applicant met the authorities on many occasions with requests for grant of MACP benefit but to no avail. The respondents passed another Office Order dated 18.05.2020 granting MACP benefit in favour of other similarly situated employees, which too did not contain the applicant's name.
7
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 6.3 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the contention of the respondents about intimation of APAR through general notice on the notice board has got no basis in the eye of law since had it been a case of general information related to all the staff, the same could have done by pasting the notice in the Notice Board but when it is a case of an APAR related to service condition of an employee the same should have been communicated individually to her inviting her representation, if any. When the APAR was ready with respect to the applicant, the same should have been communicated directly to her but such an attempt was not made.
6.4 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents erred in alleging inaction on the part of the applicant in collecting the APAR in time. The concerned APAR was never supplied to her asking her to represent against it. Question of preference of the representation at the point of time when a copy of the APAR was given to her, does not arise since she was never asked to make any representation by the respondents.
6.5 Learned Counsel submits that the circular dated 22.05.2009 clearly stipulates that the employee shall be communicated the full APAR along with the overall grading and assessment of integrity after the review by the appropriate authority and such communication shall be with the clear stipulation that if no representation is received within the stipulated period it will be presumed that the employee has nothing to submit against the assessment in his/her APAR, but the respondents did not communicate the APAR to the applicant asking her to represent as mandated under the Circular. The applicant submits that had she been served with the concerned APAR requiring her to represent, she would have submitted her representation in time.
8
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 6.6 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents erred in law even in applying the DoPT OM dated 22.10.2019 retrospectively in the instant case. The entitlement of the applicant to the MACP benefit is from June, 2019 whereas the Circular dated 22.10.2019 was issued after that. The applicant submits that APAR for the last five years are considered while granting MACP benefit in favour of the employee and in the instant case, the said period started from 2013 and/or 2014 when the benchmark of 'Very Good' did not exist. DoPT OMs of 2010 and 2012 governing the field at that point of time required only 'Good' grading in APAR. Since the period of consideration started from 2013/2014, the requirement cannot be changed to 'Very Good' in the middle of the game.
6.7 Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents did not justify the reasons of awarding below benchmark in the concerned APAR. The contents in the impugned APAR demonstrate her effectiveness, diligence and honest discharge of duties. Below benchmark grading is not commensurate with the contents in the APAR. The applicant submits that since the adverse entry made in the APAR for the year 2016-17 was never communicated by the respondent to the applicant asking her to represent, the same may not be given effect to and should be ignored, and the applicant should be granted benefit of MACP from the date of her entitlement. 6.8 The applicant states that even during the period of 2016-17, neither was the applicant served with any notice about the deterioration of her performance, nor was she served with any show-cause or charge-sheet nor any displeasure with her performance had ever been conveyed to her. The applicant further submits that a bare perusal of the APARs would reveal that 9 OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 the applicant had been awarded below benchmark in APAR of 2016-17 without any reason.
6.9 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, after the case of Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar, it has become the settled proposition that every entry must be communicated to the employee concerned. The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPCT no. 398 of 2012 (Suresh Babu vs. Union of India) following the ratio of Dev Dutt and Abjijit Ghosh Dastidar, had been pleased to pass direction for promotion to the petitioner in the said WP with effect from the same date as his immediate junior in service with a further direction for grant of all consequential benefits with effect from the said date. Learned Counsel also cites the case of Vijay Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in 1988 (Supp) SCC 674, State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah in 1999 (1) SCC 529 and Ramasubbaiah vs. Railway Board & Ors. in OA no. 170/727/2016 decided by the Coordinate Bench at Bengaluru and T. Mang Min Thang vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA 1875/2015 of Kolkata Bench.
7. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it is the usual practice followed in the respondent organization that the employees of the organization are communicated about their APAR being available for collection and representation by circulating/ affixing a notice on the Notice Board. This practice is followed by all the employees without exception and the APARs are accordingly communicated to each and every employee. In the present case, the applicant had not approached the Appropriate Authority in spite of the notice regarding availability of APAR. Therefore, the applicant cannot take the plea that her APAR was not communicated to her. 10
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 7.1 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that almost every employee of ESIC Hospital, Joka had collected his/her copy of APAR. The applicant collected the copy of her APAR for the year 2016-17 on 14.9.2018. The applicant was supposed to make her representation for her non- acceptance of grading given by the Reporting Authority within 15 days of receipt of the APAR. However, the applicant made a representation after completion of the meeting and proceedings for MACP and circulation of Office Order 87 of 2019 and also after the stipulated time to represent against the APAR grading after receiving the copy of APAR on 14.9.2018. 7.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Screening Committee constituted earlier had considered the APAR grading for granting MACP as per 7th CPC. Therefore, only the employees whose APAR gradings were 'Very Good' in the last five years were considered for grant of MACP benefit. Subsequently, the Competent Authority directed the Committee to reconsider the matter in the light of DoPT guideline dated 22.10.2019. Accordingly the Committee reconsidered the matter and issued another Office Order no. 44 of 2020 dated 18.05.2020. Since the applicant possessed lower benchmark in the year 2016-17, the Committee did not consider the name of the applicant for granting MACP benefit as the applicant is not eligible for MACP even in the light of revised guideline dated 22.10.2019. 7.3 Learned Counsel submits that the grading in the applicant's APAR was 5.6 which is 'Good' and as the respondent's Reporting Authority found her discharging her duties effectively, 'Good' grading was awarded to her. The grading in APAR is actually the evaluation of performances of an employee by his/her Controlling/ Reporting Authority. Since the APAR grading was 'Good', prior communication to the applicant was not considered necessary. He 11 OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 submits that the grading given in APAR for the period 2016-17 was 'Good' and hence there was no necessity of serving any notice or show cause/ charge sheet about the deterioration of her performance. Since her performance was 'Good' during the period 2017-18 questions of disqualification did not arise. The Reporting Authority may convey/issue Notice to the employee only if the grading in the APAR is below 4 (Average).
7.4 Learned Counsel for the respondents further states that the facts in WPCT no. 398 of 2012 (Suresh Babu vs. Union of India) adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta are different from the facts in the present case. The case of T. Mang Min Thang vs. Union of India & Ors. is also different from the present case as the actual fact in the stated case is in the matter of DPC for promotion. OA no. 170/1875/2015 is also not similar in nature.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the documents on record.
8.1 The applicant has made the following arguments in support of her claim :-
(i) According to the applicant, due care has not been taken by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers in writing her APAR particularly the one for 2016-17. She further submits that before giving her below benchmark grade in the APAR for 2016-17, she was neither cautioned nor informed about her unsatisfactory performance. This is against the ratio laid down in several judicial pronouncements that an employee should be given the opportunity to improve her performance before she is graded adversely.
(ii) Eligibility for financial upgradation under MACP scheme has been changed from a rating of 'Good' to 'Very Good' in the year 2016. Since the five year period in the case of the applicant began in 2014-15, rules in force in 12 OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 2014-15 should apply while considering her case for 1st financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. In other words, in her case the requirement should be 'Good' in all five years instead of 'Very Good'.
(iii) Respondents did not follow the provisions regarding communication of full APAR as contained in DoPT Circular dated 14.05.2009. She disputes the claim of the respondents that a notice to the effect that APARs were available to all employees was pasted on the Notice Board. She argues that APAR is an assessment of individual's performance and as per the instructions of DoPT, it is to be communicated individually to an employee with a clear stipulation that the employee can make a representation within the specified period for a review of the APAR. Since no such communication was made to the applicant, she was deprived of the right and opportunity to make a representation.
Under the circumstances, respondent's reasons for not considering her representation on the ground of such representation having been made after the stipulated period is untenable. The applicant has cited several judicial pronouncements holding that APAR has to be communicated in full to an employee inviting her representation if she is aggrieved by the entries in APAR including the grading obtained by her. The applicant cites the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in Suresh Babu (Supra) where the Hon'ble Court has directed that the applicant who did not have the required grade be granted promotion because the APAR was not communicated to him. 8.2 APAR is a review of the performance of an employee during a particular year. By definition, therefore, it is possible to rate an individual's performance differently in different years. Similarly the grading in APAR is based on an assessment of the employee's performance by her Reporting and Reviewing Officers who are best placed to undertake such assessment. There 13 OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 is a provision for making representation against the entries in the APAR within a stipulated period which is to be considered by the appropriate authority in the department. Ordinarily, in our opinion, there is no scope for a judicial intervention in a matter which is squarely in the domain of the executive. We find no reason to interfere directly with the entries or gradings in the APAR.
8.3 We also agree with the submissions of the respondents that since 'Good' grading is not an adverse assessment unlike 'Average' or 'Poor' grading, the Reporting Officer had no occasion to caution the applicant regarding her performance.
8.4 Eligibility criteria for grant of financial upgradation under MACP scheme was changed from 'Good' to 'Very Good' in the year 2016 with the stipulation that this change will apply prospectively from 2016-17. DoPT Circular of 22.10.2019 quoted by the respondents is merely a reiteration of the provisions contained in 2016 instructions. In the case of the applicant, even if her APAR gradings were 'Good' in 2014-15 and 2015-16, she would have been eligible for financial upgradation under MACP. We do not find violation of principles of natural justice in the provision revising the eligibility nor in implementation of said provision by the respondents in granting MACP. 8.5 DoPT, following the judgments in Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar, issued an OM on 14.05.2009. Para 2 (i) to (iv) of this OM is extracted below :-
"2. Keeping in view the above position, the matter regarding communication of entries in the ACRs in the case of civil services under the Government of India has been further reviewed and the undersigned is directed to convey the following decisions of the Government:-
(i) The existing nomenclature of the Annual Confidential Report will be modified as Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR).14
OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020
(ii) The full APAR including the overall grade and assessment of integrity shall be communicated to the concerned officer after the Report is complete with the remarks of the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority wherever such system is in vogue. Where Government servant has only one supervisory level above him as in the case of personal staff attached to officers, such communication shall be made after the reporting officer has completed the performance assessment.
(iii) The Section entrusted with the maintenance of APARs after its receipt shall disclose the same to the officer reported upon.
(iv) The concerned officer shall be given the opportunity to make any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the Report within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries in the APAR. The representation shall be restricted to the specific factual observations contained in the report leading to assessment of the officer in terms of attributes, work output etc. While communicating the entries, it shall be made clear that in case no representation is received within the fifteen days, it shall be deemed that he/she has no representation to make. If the concerned APAR Section does not receive any information from the concerned officer on or before fifteen days from the date of disclosure, the APAR will be treated as final." The para above stipulate that the APAR in full is to be communicated to the employee with the advice that representation, if any is to be made within a specified period. The DoPT OM or any other instruction is however silent on the exact procedure to be followed or the manner in which this communication is to be made. The respondents claim to have made this communication through a notice on notice board, which the applicant vehemently claims not to have seen. The applicant prays that the APAR for 2016-17 should be ignored while considering her case for financial upgradation under MACP scheme as was done in the case of Suresh Babu(supra) decided by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. We have gone through the judgment in the said case. In Suresh Babu(supra) , the applicant was denied promotion on account of his ACR grading in the year 2005 which was not communicated to him. It is worth noting here that Suresh Babu(supra), as well as OA no. 1875/2015 of this Bench and OA no. 170/727/2016 decided by the Coordinate Bench in Bengaluru relate to cases of promotion and not grant of financial upgradation under MACP. Suresh 15 OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 Babu(supra) and OA no. 170/727/2016 of Bengaluru Bench of CAT also deal with Performance Reports of the applicant for periods prior to Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar and also DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009. We, therefore, do not consider these judgments to be directly relatable to the case in hand. 8.6 As noted above, clear guidelines regarding the exact procedure to be adopted for communicating the APAR to an employee is not available in any of the instructions available on record. The respondents have claimed to have put up a notice on the notice board. A copy of the notice has not been made available on record. Respondents have, however, filed documentary evidence to prove that a number of employees did receive their APARs from the Department in 2018 itself, i.e., in time to make representation against APAR entries before the decision on grant of financial upgradation under MACP was taken. There is however, no material on record to indicate that the employees in general and the applicant in particular were advised that they could make representations against the APAR entries within a given period of time. 8.7 At the same time, we do not find any merit in the prayer of the applicant that the APAR for 2016-17 be ignored and MACP benefit be granted on the basis of rest of the APARs. The system adopted by the respondents to communicate the APAR is applicable to APAR for other years also. If APAR for one year is ignored on the ground of its improper communication, all other APARs will also have to be ignored giving rise to an untenable situation. 8.8 In our considered opinion, justice will be served if the respondents are directed to re-examine the points raised in the representation of the applicant with respect to her APAR on its merits. Accordingly, we deem it fit to dispose of this OA and all other OAs heard analogously by giving liberty to the 16 OA 646/2020, OA 966/2020, OA 1051/2020 applicants to file fresh representations against the entries and grading in their APAR for the years 2016-17 or 2017-18, as the case may be, within a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date of issue of this order. Respondents will consider the representations, if received, on merits, without insisting that the representation is time barred and without the influence of their earlier decision, within a period of 08 (eight) weeks of receiving the representation. If the applicant/applicants is/are found to be eligible for grant of 1st financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, as a result of such re-examination of the representations and the APAR entries, benefits of financial upgradation will be extended to the applicant/applicants within a period of 04 (four) weeks thereafter.
9. OAs stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl