Gauhati High Court
Shankar Das vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 20 May, 2025
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010251112022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8200/2022
SHANKAR DAS
NO. 971240688 HC/GD S/O. LT. AMULYA RATAN DAS, R/O. SHIBPUR,
ABHAYAPURI TOWN-3, P.S. AND P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAINGAON,
ASSAM-783384.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS .
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW
DELHI-110001.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
CRPF HEAD QUARTER
BLOCK-13
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003.
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
WEST BENGAL SECTOR
CRPF
SALT LAKE
A.C. BLOCK
SECTOR-03
KOLKATA-700091.
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE HEADQUARTER
Page No.# 2/7
CRPF
DURGAPUR
WEST BENGAL-713201.
5:THE COMMANDANT
173RD BATTALION OF THE CRPF
DURGAPUR RANGE
BARDHAMAN
WEST BENGAL-713101.
6:THE COMMANDANT
142ND BATTALION
CRPF
JONAKINAGAR
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM-785621
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MS. A BORUAH,MR. M DEKA,MR. F A
FAROOQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. B SARMA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 20-05-2025 Heard Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Sarma, learned CGC for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the rejection of his claim for the grant of the second financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), which he claims he is entitled to on account of having completed 20 years of Page No.# 3/7 satisfactory service.
3. The petitioner is serving as a Head Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) bearing Constable No.971230688 HC/GD. It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed 20 (twenty) years of satisfactory service and thereby, he is qualified to grant for 2nd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) issued vide the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 by the Department of Personnel and Training Government of India under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension. However, while the other similarly situated constables were granted the benefit, his claim for the second financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) stood rejected. The petitioner raised his demands before the Commandant of 135 (W) Battalion, CRPF vide his letter dated 14.05.2019 and he was informed that the grading given to him in his Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the year 2016 was "Good".
4. The petitioner submitted his application before the higher authorities for reviewing his grading in the APAR for the year 2016, but the same was rejected on the ground that since both the Reporting Officer and the Revisional Officer had already retired from service, it was not possible to take comments from them in this regard. Since the petitioner's grievance was not redressed, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point in time, which is for the year 2016, the petitioner had been graded as 'Good,' which was the prescribed benchmark according to the criteria in force at that time. However, from the year 2017, the Page No.# 4/7 benchmark was raised to " Very Good" and therefore, the authorities concerned have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per the criteria laid down, he did not obtain the benchmark "Very Good" for the year 2016 which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits is an incorrect interpretation on the parameters laid in the concerned Office Memorandum.
6. The respondents have contested their claim by filing affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents have contended that, for the recommendation and sanction of the second MACPS, the required benchmark for the last five years of APARs must be met. With effect from 2016, the benchmark was raised to 'Very Good,' and since the petitioner failed to obtain this benchmark for the year 2016, his case was rejected by the respondent authorities.
7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on records have been perused.
8. It was seen that the Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2019 lays down the consolidated Guidelines regarding Modified Assured Carrier Progression Scheme of the Central Government Civilian Employees. In Paragraph 17 of the said Office Memorandum it is mentioned that for grant for financial upgradations under MACP Scheme, the prescribed benchmark shall be "Very Good" for all levels. This revised benchmark is applicable for APARs from the year 2016- 17 and subsequent years, however, was to be made effective from 25.07.2016.
9. There is no dispute that for the year 2015, the petitioner had secured the required benchmark i.e. "Good". For the year 2016, the petitioner was also graded as " Good". For the year 2017, the petitioner secured " Very Good". In the said Office Memorandum at Pragraph-
Page No.# 5/7 17 as a matter of illustration, assessments of the benchmark for the APARs for the relevant years are provided. The same is extracted below for example.
"The financial upgradation would be non-functional basis subject to fitness in the hierarchy of Grade pay within the PB-I. Thereafter for upgradation under the MACPS the benchmark of "good" would be applicable till the grade pay of Rs.6600/- in PB-3. The benchmark will be "Very Good" for financial upgradaton to the grade pay of Rs.7600 and above."
For example, if a particular MACP falls due on or after 25.07.2016, the following Benchmarks for APARs are applicable:
APAR for the year Benchmark grading for Benchmark grading for MACP for Level 11 and MACP for Level 12 and below above 2013-14 and earlier Good Very Good years 2014-15 Good Very Good 2015-16 Good Very Good 2016-17 Very Good Very Good 2017-18 and Very Good Very Good subsequent years
10. The grading for "Very Good" is made applicable with effect from 25.07.2016. The table Page No.# 6/7 extracted above, however, shows that for grant of the benefit of MACPs, the gradings for the relevant years where the candidate has been graded as " Good" up to the year 2015-16 has been shown that it will also be accepted as " Very Good".
11. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the revised benchmark of " Very Good"
cannot be made applicable to any incumbent for the purpose of eligibility for the grant of MACPS benefits prior to 24.05.2016. The revised benefit of " Very Good" is only to be made applicable with effect from 25.07.2016 as per OM dated 22.10.2019.
12. Therefore, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2019, even if the petitioner was graded as "Good" for the year 2016 up to the cutoff date which is 24.07.2016, his benchmark "Good" has to be accepted to be "Very Good" in terms of the OM dated 22.10.2019. Therefore, for the year 2016-17, the benchmark issued to the person concerned in a given case may fall under 2 (two) different categories. The first period i.e. upto 24.07.2016 even if the candidate is given " Good", then as per the said Office Memorandum, this benchmark is to be treated as " Very Good". It is only with effect from 25.07.2016 that benchmark of "Good", will not be treated to be "Very Good" in respect of any candidate. Under such circumstances, on 06.05.2025 when the matter was being considered by the Court, an opportunity was granted to Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC for the respondent authorities to seek her up to date clarification in the matter.
13. Learned CGC for the respondents has placed before the Court a communication dated
18.05.12025 on the basis of which the learned CGC submits that the Department has decided to review the petitioner's grading in the APAR for the year 2016 as it appears to be not in Page No.# 7/7 order and that the petitioner appears to be entitled for the second financial upgradation with effect from 08.08.2017. The communication dated 18.05.2025 is kept in record. Learned CGC for the respondents on the basis of instructions submits that the Department has decided to review the grading of the benchmark given to the petitioner for the year 2016 and have now taken a decision that he is entitled for the second financial upgradation with effect from 08.08.2017 and the Authorities have decided that the matter be placed before the Screening Committee for reconsideration of the matter taking into account the APARs for the reckoning period which is 5 (five) years preceeding T-2 nd year, no further claims survives in the present writ petition.
14. Under such circumstances, in view of the decision taken, the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents to place the matter before the Screening Committee to consider the petitioner's entitlement for release of 2 nd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any decision taken in this regard shall be communicated to the petitioner by furnishing a copy of the said order. It is ordered accordingly.
15. In terms of the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant