Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satinder Pal Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 25 June, 2021
Item No. 28 OA No. 3251/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3251/2019
Friday, this the 25th day of June, 2021
(Through video conferencing)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Mr. Satinder Pal Singh
Aged 54 years
S/o late Sh. Gurdeep Singh
R/o I-26, West Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008
Post - Group Instructor
ITI Arab Ki Sarai
Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110013
.... Applicant
(Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Secretary
Department of Training & Technical Education
Muni Maya Ram Marg
Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034.
3. The Director
Department of Training & Technical Education
Muni Maya Ram Marg
Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034.
4. The Principal
ITI Arab Ki Sarai
Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110013
... Respondents
(Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Advocate)
2
Item No. 28 OA No. 3251/2019
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
The applicant is working as Group Instructor in the ITI under the Department of Training & Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. He became due for 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) in September, 2016. The Departmental Screening Committee considered the case of the applicant but denied the same on the basis of the instructions dated 27.09.2016 received from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T). It was to the effect that the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommended that the MACP shall be extendable to employees, if only their Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) are 'very good' and above, and in the case of the applicant, out of 5 APARs, 2 were rated as 'good'. On a representation submitted by the applicant, the respondents passed an order dated 27.02.2019 informing the applicant, the reasons. This O.A. is filed challenging the order dated 27.02.2019 and with a prayer to direct the respondents to extend him, the benefit of 3rd MACP with all consequential benefits.
2. The applicant contends that changes, that are brought about through an order dated 27.09.2016 by the DoP&T, are 3 Item No. 28 OA No. 3251/2019 prospective in nature and since the relevant span is five years preceding 2015-26, the said clarification has no impact. The applicant further contends that some of his fellow employees were extended the benefit of 3rd MACP even when some of their APARs in the block of 5 years were rated as 'good'.
3. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the denial of 3 rd MACP to the applicant was on the basis of the instructions received from the DoP&T, vide their order dated 27.09.2016. They further contend that the DoP&T clarified the matter at a later stage on 22.10.2019, to the effect that the APARs of 2016-17 and thereafter were required to be 'very good' and not otherwise. In all fairness, the respondents have stated that in the light of the changed circumstances, the applicant can make a representation and the same would be considered.
4. Today we heard Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for respondents.
5. The applicant completed 30 years of service by 12.09.2016 and thereby, his case fell for consideration for grant of 3rd MACP. The grant of 3rd MACP is subject to the employee being found fit into the parameters clarified 4 Item No. 28 OA No. 3251/2019 thereafter. Till the DoP&T passed order dated 27.09.2016, the benchmark for 3rd MACP was 'good' in the APARs for the preceding five years. In the case of the applicant, the relevant years are from 2011-12 to 2015-16. The respondents were under the impression that the requirement of 'very good' APARs applies to the case of the applicant. However, the DoP&T clarified at a subsequent stage that the benchmark of 'very good' is applicable only for the APARs of the year 2016- 17 onwards. The relevant APARs of the applicant are earlier to that year. The record discloses that the applicant is rated as 'very good' in 2 APARs and 'good' in 3 APARs. The benchmark is only 'good'. The applicant thus satisfies the requirement. The denial of the benefit to the applicant at the relevant point of time was on account of uncertainty that arose in implementation of the recommendations of 7th CPC. The doubt, that existed in this regard, was clarified with the issuance of order dated 22.10.2019 by the DoP&T.
6. We, therefore, allow the O.A. and set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2019. The respondents shall process the case of the applicant for extension of the benefit of 3rd MACP within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If he is found fit, the necessary benefit together with arrears shall be paid to him, within a period of two months thereafter. In case it is denied further, the 5 Item No. 28 OA No. 3251/2019 amount shall carry an interest @ 9%. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Mohd. Jamshed ) ( Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member (A) Chairman
June 25, 2021
/sunil/vb/ns/