Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Ashish Kumar Khare vs M/O Agriculture on 10 February, 2025
1 OA No.310/00852 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00852/2017
Dated this the 10th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
Ashish Kumar Khare,
S/o Shri U.K. Khare,
Jr. Hindi Translator,
Fishery Survey of India,
Fishing Harbour Complex,
Royapuram, Chennai, .. Applicant
(Party-in-person)
Vs
1. Shri Mahesh Kumar Farejiya,
Director General,
Fishery Survey of India,
Plot No.2A, Unit No.12,
Sassoor Dock, Colaba,
Mumbai.
2. Shri A. Tiburtius,
Sr. Fisheries Scientist,
Fishery Survey of India,
Fishing Harbour Complex,
Royapuram, Chennai.
3. The Director General
Fishery Survey of India,
Plot No.2A, Unit No.12,
Sassoor Dock, Colaba,
Mumbai .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. T. Arunan
2 OA No.310/00852 of 2017
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"(1) Declare that the grant and to consider for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme for an isolated post which the applicant holds there is no requirement of minimum benchmark as prescribed in para 17 of the Annexure A-3 (2) Direct the respondents and declare that in order to consider the applicant's case for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme minimum bench mark is not required and the Screening Committee while considering the applicant's case should not insist for minimum benchmark for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.
(3) Direct the respondent to convene review meeting of the Screening committee and consider the applicant's case for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme as per the DoPT guidelines within stipulate time frame as may be deemed just and may be decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal (4) Declare the Annexure A-2, order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the R-1 as non-est and set aside the same.
(5) Pass any order/orders or directions as deemed just, fit, appropriate and necessary in facts and circumstances of the case.
(6) Award the cost of the application."
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The Applicant is currently employed as a Junior Hindi Translator at the Fishery Survey of India, Mumbai, a subordinate office under the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of 3 OA No.310/00852 of 2017 Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. This position is classified as an isolated post. The Applicant claims eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. On 28.03.2015, the Department issued a Memorandum stating that the Applicant's grading in the ACRs was below the benchmark. The Applicant's representation regarding this grading was forwarded to the Reviewing Officer for comment, and once received, would be sent to the Screening Committee for MACP recommendation. On 16.04.2015, the Applicant submitted a representation requesting the benefit of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal's order, dated 08.01.2008 (OA No.610/2006) and the DoPT OM dated 04.10.2012. With no response from the Department, the Applicant filed OA No.720/2016 before this Tribunal. By order, dated 22.04.2016, the Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the representation after a personal hearing. As there was no action taken, the Applicant filed Contempt Petition No.11/2017. On 17.03.2017, the Tribunal disposed of the petition. Subsequently, by an order, on 18.05.2017, the respondents rejected the Applicant's claim which order is impugned in the present OA.
3. The applicant argued that the 1st respondent refused to extend the benefits of the orders of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 610/2006 and 305/2013, which had attained finality. The refusal was based on the claim that these OAs were filed by Skippers and, therefore, did not 4 OA No.310/00852 of 2017 apply to the applicant, as the post of Skipper was not an isolated post. The applicant countered that the post of Skipper is indeed an isolated post, a fact acknowledged by the Department before the Tribunal, which is part of the record. Even if the Skipper's position is not considered isolated and promotion opportunities exist within the Department, the applicant argued that the requirement of a benchmark for financial upgradation should not apply, given the nature of the isolated post. He stated that applying the benchmark for financial upgradation in such a case was unreasonable, unjust, and a result of a failure to consider relevant factors.
4. The applicant further pointed out that when the government relaxes or exempts certain conditions for a group of employees based on valid grounds, the same should apply to similarly situated individuals. Denying such benefits was, according to the applicant, unjust and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the applicant sought relief in the present OA.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the applicant's submissions. He argued that according to Paragraph 17 of the DoPT OM dated 19.05.2009, financial upgradation would be on a non- functional basis, subject to fitness, within the hierarchy of Grade Pay in PB-1. For upgradation under the MACP scheme, a "Good" benchmark 5 OA No.310/00852 of 2017 would apply up to the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3. For financial upgradation to a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- and above, the benchmark would be "Very Good." This was further clarified in the OM dated 01.11.2010, which stated that if financial upgradation under the MACP scheme also falls within a promotional grade where the promotion benchmark is lower than the one required for MACP benefits, the promotion benchmark mentioned in Para 17 ibid shall apply to the MACP as well.
6. He drew our attention to the following gradings awarded to the applicant in his ACRs for the period from 2002 to 2010 :
S. No. ACR Year Reviewing Officer
Remarks
1 2002 - 2003 Very Poor
2 2003 - 2004 Average
3 2005 - 2006 Office Memo
4 2006 - 2007 Below Average
5 2007 - 2008 Below Average
6 2008 - 2009 Average
7 2009 - 2010 Average
Although the applicant was appointed as Junior Hind Translator on 04.02.1999, his probation was declared on 13.04.2010 due to receiving an "Average" and "Below Average" benchmark in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
6 OA No.310/00852 of 2017
7. The respondents' counsel further argued that the cases cited by the applicant viz., OA No. 610/2006 and OA No. 605/2013, filed by Shri P. Haridasan and Shri P. Narayanan before the Ernakulam Bench, were not applicable to the present case. In those cases, the applicants held the post of 'Skipper' and received financial upgradation to a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-. Moreover, in those cases, the applicants had a "Good" benchmark, as opposed to the "Very Good" benchmark required by Para 17 of the OM dated 19.05.2009. In contrast, the applicant in the present case holds an "Average" and "Below Average" benchmark in his ACRs. As such, the respondent contended that the applicant's claim could not be granted and pleaded for dismissal of the OA.
8. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to which the respondents have a filed a reply reiterating the respective contentions made in the OA and the reply statement.
9. We have heard the applicant who appeared as Parry-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
7 OA No.310/00852 of 2017
10. The issue in the OA is whether the normal benchmark is necessary to extend the benefits under the MACP to an isolated post.
11. It is clear from the DoPT OM dated 01.11.2010 and 04.10.2012 that Para 17 in Annexure I of the MACP OM dated 19.05.2009 has been modified. The modification specifies that when financial upgradation under the MACP scheme occurs within a promotional grade, and the promotion benchmark is lower than the benchmark for MACP benefits, the benchmark requirement for both promotion and MACP is 'Good.' This clarification leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the application of the benchmark for MACP benefits. Specifically, the 'Good' benchmark is sufficient even for a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- and above for MACP upgradation. The DoPT has not indicated that MACP can be granted for below-benchmark performance, such as 'Average' or 'Below Average,' even if the post is isolated. In the present case, the applicant has received 'Average' and 'Below Average' benchmarks for the five years under consideration. As a result, the applicant is not entitled to financial upgradation. Furthermore, the orders from the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal cited by the applicant are not applicable, as the applicants in those cases had a 'Good' benchmark, unlike the applicant here. 8 OA No.310/00852 of 2017
12. Based on the above clarification from the DoPT, we must determine the normal benchmark is required for both promotions and financial upgradations under the MACP, regardless of whether the post is isolated or non-isolated.
13. In light of these circumstances, we find that the applicant has failed to establish a valid case. Therefore, the OA is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
10. 02.2025
mas