Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Kashi Nath Prasad vs Union Of India on 1 December, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00358/2016 Kashi Nath Prasad Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00358 of 2016
Dated, this 1st day of December, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Kashi Nath Prasad aged about 62 years, S/o late Sri H.D. Ram, R/o
653/6 Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Awasthi
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts, Government of India, Dak Tar Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. The Director (Headquarters) Postal, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
4. The Postmaster General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar Division,
Muzaffarnagar.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS, hereafter), the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(a) Issue order/direction/quashing the order dated 30.03.2016, contained in Annexure No. 1, passed by respondent No. 5 to the extent it grants the third financial up-gradation under MACP scheme to the applicant w.e.f. 01.04.2013 instead of 02.04.2010 with all consequential benefits.
(b) Issue order/direction/in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant third financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme to the applicant w.e.f 24.04.2010 the date on which he completed 30 years of regular service instead of 01.04.2023 and as a consequence thereof the pay and pension of the applicant be fixed accordingly and Page 1 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00358/2016 Kashi Nath Prasad Vs. UOI & Ors.
arrears thereof may also kindly be paid along with interest @ 18 % per annum.
(c) Issue order/direction/in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant, contained in Annexure no. 11, which is lying pending with the respondent No. 2 for disposal by passing a reasoned and speaking order within time frame.
(d) Issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(e) Allow the Original Application with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and Grounds raised in the Application.
(e-i) To quash and set-aside the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the respondents (APMG) (Staff) communicated by Superintendent of Post Office, Muzaffarnagar vide covering letter dated 03.06.2016 received by the applicant on 05.08.2016 rejecting the representation of the applicant as contained in Annexure No. 11-A."
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the respondents on 24.04.1980. He was granted 1st financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression scheme on completion of 16 years of service with effect from 24.04.1996 and the 2nd financial upgradation under with effect from 01.07.2006 under One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) Scheme. The applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 552 of 2015 for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACPS on completion of 30 years of service which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 13.01.2016 directing the respondents to decide the applicant's representation. The respondents issued order dated 30.03.2016 granting 3rd MACP to the applicant with effect from 01.04.2013 and not from 24.04.2010. The applicant's representation was rejected vide order dated 23.05.2016. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 30.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 passed by the respondents declining grant of 3rd MACP with effect from 24.04.2010 on completion of 30 years of service, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant contends that he is entitled to 3rd MACP with effect from 24.04.2010, i.e., on completion of 30 years of service. Page 2 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00358/2016 Kashi Nath Prasad Vs. UOI & Ors.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that for grant of 3rd MACP, the applicant's Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) were considered for the years 2004-05 to 2009-10 which were found to be below the benchmark grading of 'Good'; further, the applicant was imposed upon penalty of recovery of Rs. 26,334/- and reduction of one stage of pay with effect from 01.08.2008 for a period of one year; consequently, the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) adjudged him unfit. It is further stated that as the applicant's APARs for the years 2008-09 to 2012-13 met the requisite benchmark, he was granted 3rd MACP with effect from 01.04.2013.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant contends that he has not been communicated the APARs assessing him below benchmark and in the absence of such communication, the said APARs could not have been taken into consideration for grant of financial upgradation under MACPS.
6. We have heard both the parties.
7.1 As per the respondents, the applicant was found unfit for grant of 3rd MACP with effect from 24.04.2010 for two reasons. The first reason was that his APARs for the relevant period were found to be below the benchmark grading of 'Good'. The second reason was that punishment was imposed on the applicant.
7.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the settled position in regard to communication of APARs in the judgment and order dated 21.01.2019 in Anil Kumar vs Union of India & Ors Civil Appeal No. 888 of 2019 [arising out of SLP(C) 32073 of 2016] in the following manner:
"In Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725 a two Judge Bench of this Court held that fairness in public administration and transparency require that all entries in the Page 3 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00358/2016 Kashi Nath Prasad Vs. UOI & Ors.
Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must be communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the employee to make a representation for upgradation. The view of the Court was that non-communication of entries in the ACRs has civil consequences since it may affect the chances of the employee for promotion and other benefits. A failure to communicate would be arbitrary. This Court held that these directions would apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State, in addition to government servants. A three Judge Bench of this Court has in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 566 affirmed the correctness of the view taken in Dev Dutt (supra) noting that an earlier three Judge Bench in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 146 had adopted the same principle.
The three Judge Bench in Sukhdev Singh (supra), held thus:
"8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period."
(emphasis supplied) It follows from the above that communication of ACR/APAR to the employee is an essential requirement of principles of natural justice. It is noted that in Dev Dutt (supra), the Apex Court mandated disclosure of ACR of 1993-94 to the petitioner therein. Keeping in view the aforementioned settled legal position, it is observed that the respondents were duty bound to communicate APARs to the applicant to afford him opportunity to make representation against the assessment therein. It is not the case of the respondents that the APARs in question were communicated to the applicant. Further, a perusal of the impugned orders dated 30.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 reveals that the crucial aspect of communication of APARs to the applicant has not been addressed at all. In our opinion, in failing to Page 4 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00358/2016 Kashi Nath Prasad Vs. UOI & Ors. communicate the APARs to the applicant, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice.
7.3 The other aspect is the effect of punishment imposed on the applicant. In this regard, it is noted that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), in its office memorandum dated 28.04.2014, has made the following provision:
"3. Further this Department's O.M. No. No.22034/5/2004-Estt (D) dated 15.12.2004 provides that a Government servant, on whom a minor penalty of withholding of increment etc. has been imposed, should be considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee which meets after the imposition of the said penalty and after due consideration of full facts leading to imposition of the penalty, if he is still considered fit for promotion, the promotion may be given effect after the expiry of the currency of the penalty."
(emphasis supplied) It is noted from the above that imposition of minor penalty is no bar for promotion after the expiry of the period of such penalty. It is observed that in the applicant's case, a minor penalty was imposed vide order dated 31.07.2008 for charge sheet issued under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 for a period of one year with effect from 01.08.2008 and so the currency of the penalty expired well before 24.04.2010, i.e., date of completion of 30 years of applicant's service.
7.4 In conclusion, the impugned orders dated 30.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 are not sustainable in law for declining grant of 3rd MACP to the applicant on completion of 30 years service, i.e., with effect from 24.04.2010 based on APARs which were not communicated to him to make representation.
8.1 In view of the foregoing, the orders dated 30.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 are quashed and set aside to the extent of denial of 3rd MACP to the applicant on completion of 30 years of service. Page 5 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00358/2016 Kashi Nath Prasad Vs. UOI & Ors. 8.2 The respondents are directed to communicate the APARs relevant for considering grant of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service, i.e., with effect from 24.04.2010 to the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and afford opportunity to the applicant to make representation against assessment recorded in the APARs concerned within a fortnight of such communication. The respondents are further directed to consider and decide the applicant's representation on assessment recorded in APARs within two months of its receipt.
8.3 The respondents shall convene a review DPC/DSC to consider grant of MACP to the applicant with effect from 24.04.2010 based on the reconsideration of assessment recorded in his APARs in the above manner within three months from such reconsideration of assessment of APARs.
8.4 This OA is disposed of in above terms.
8.5 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
8.6 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.12.02
14:46:56 +05'30'
Page 6 of 6