Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

HON'BLE MS.K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the respondent's rejection to grant her second MACP.

2. The applicant who was appointed as Postal Assistant with effect from 31.05.1990, was granted first financial upgradation with effect from 31.05.2006. The Director General of Posts, vide Annexure A-1 O.M, has circulated the orders of the DOPT regarding introduction of MACP, which permits three financial upgradations on completion of 10,20 and 30 years of service. As such, the applicant avers that she is due for second MACP in Pay Band I of Rs.5200/- - Rs.20200/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from 01.06.2010. While so, the third respondent, vide Annexures A-2 and A-6, communicated the entries in the Annual Confidential Reports for three years from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009 with instructions to her to submit representation for upgradation of the below benchmark grading in the ACRs to the second respondent. She produced copies of the ACRs as Annexures A-3, A-4 and A-5. She promptly submitted her Annexure A-7 representation to R2. The applicant contends that eventhough she had put in unblemished service in the department and had exhibited utmost integrity and devotion to duty, her request for upgradation of grading from 'average' to 'good' was turned down. The applicant avers that the first communication about MACP scheme was dated 19.05.2009 and hence the requirement of benchmark of 'good' for financial up gradation can have only prospective application. According to her, prior to 19.05.2009, the benchmark of 'average' was not a bar for financial up gradations. Moreover, as per Column II of the ACR form, the competent authorities are expected to make useful suggestion to the officials for achieving high standards of efficiency, economy in administration etc. The whole object of making this suggestion is to give to the officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performance and efficiency. The applicant claims that it is regrettable that no such suggestion was ever been made by the competent authority. It, therefore, shows that the reporting authority had not at all applied his mind while writing the ACRs of the applicant. She further adds that ACRs are written in a casual manner. Hence she contends that the denial of second MACP is illegal and arbitrary. The applicant produced a copy of the order in Original Applications No.471/2010 & 799/09 and averred that her case is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal supra.

3. The respondents contested the Original Application and filed reply statement. They submitted that on receipt of Annexure A-1 O.M regarding introduction of MACP, action was initiated to constitute the Screening Committee. The Committee met on 19.11.2010 and considered the case of all officials of Vadakara Postal Division, which included the applicant also. Since the applicant did not get the minimum bench mark prescribed for the purpose of financial upgradation under MACPS, she was not found eligible for placement in the next higher grade. Therefore, as per the instructions contained in DG Posts letter dated 01.09.2010, the Scrutiny Committee was constituted for the purpose of reassessing the grading awarded to the applicant prior to the reporting period of 2008-09, so as to afford an opportunity to the applicant and other similarly affected officials to represent against the adverse remarks/below benchmark grading in their ACRs. The recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee will be considered by the second respondent for taking necessary steps to raise the benchmark as one time settlement of cases prior to 2009. The respondents stated that on perusal of representation submitted by the applicant, the Scrutiny Committee found that the applicant did not put forth any grounds to substantiate her achievements/improvement in work during the three years period under review and instead she only made some objectionable comments about the manner of making entries in the ACRs by the reporting officer without producing any evidence to support her claim. In the absence of any achievements in her performance being high lighted by the applicant, the Scrutiny Committee did not recommend up gradation of her grading to 'good'. The recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee was accepted by the second respondent. The above decision was conveyed to the applicant within the prescribed time limit of one month. The respondents pointed out that the applicant had not exhausted the official channels as she failed to submit a representation to the C.P.M.G, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthauram.

10. The above would show that the graph of assessment has been fluctuating and in zig-zag motion. The sting of below benchmark grading would continue for five years. As for example, all the applicants have the grading of Average for the year 2002 - 2003 the adverse effect of which would prevail till 2006-2007. Again, Applicant in OA No. 1 of 2007 and 3 of 2007 have the below Bench mark grading for the year 2004-2005, the adverse effect of which would extend till 2009-2010.

20. This order shall be complied with, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order."

9. In the case of the applicant, as per the instructions issued by the DOPT and circular by DG Posts, the below benchmark grading/adverse remarks for the period up to 2009 after the introduction of MACPS were communicated to the applicant. The applicant's representation for raising the benchmark from 'average' to 'good' was not recommended by the scrutiny committee, which was constituted for the purpose and the recommendation of the scrutiny committee was accepted by the appellate authority i.e, R2. The Scrutiny Commttee and R2 were of the opinion that when an opportunity was afforded to the applicant to show that she performed her duty diligently, efficiently and with devotion and sincerity, she failed to do so. She only pointed out that the Reporting Officer has not applied his mind and he made entries in the ACRs in a casual manner. While I find force in the contention of the respondents that the applicant made no attempt to narrate the way she performed her duty, there is no explanation by the reporting officer when the grading of the applicant from 'Good' up to March 2006 was suddently down graded to average for three consecutive years from 2006 to 2009. When such a down gradation of grading takes place, the Reporting Officer should have taken care to substantiate the need to down grade the grading by giving instances of her failure to attend to her assigned work. Eventhough, the respondents have submitted in their reply statement that the ACRs were written after giving due care to the entries made in the memo of service, no such fact is discernable by the way the remarks are made in the ACRs. R-3 was expected to send copies of the remarks made in the memo of services, for each instance of departure from the task as given in the memo of distribution of work to her. Equally, for giving a grading of 'good' for the next three years from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 no remarks are made for such upgradation of grading as compared to the previous years. Hence, I tend to accept the plea of the applicant that the entires in the ACRs are made in a mechanical manner. It is quite possible that when the head of the Postal Division has to report about more than roughly 1500 Group C officials, he may not be in a position to assess the capability and nature of performance of each official working under him in his Division from the grade of Postmen onwards. The respondents have not pointed out any short coming in the performance of the applicant in their reply statement. Had she been slipshod in performance of her duties she would have come up for adverse notice as a lot of accounting of various transactions has to be done in the Post Office which is to be verified on a daily basis by the Head Post Office to which such daily accounts are submitted. Hence, we are of the view that taking the totality of her service there was no rationale or logic for giving her a grading of average only for 3 years from 2006 to 2009 in a span of 10 years. As pointed out by the applicant there was no oral or written counselling given to her to improve her standard of performance.