In one division MACP was denied by taking into consideration of non-communicated APAR entries. the following is the common draft prepared and sent to them. May be useful for some.
Sub : Non grant of MACP due to application of non-communicated APARs by the SSPOs, Asansol division – request intervention and pray justice
Ref : Fresh
I would like to bring to your kind notice that I, _________________ am working as a PA, ________SO/HO and my Date of entry into the department is ___________ and I have completed _____years of service as on 01.11.2020.
As per the
DOPT OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt (D) dated 19.05.2009 and 22.10.2019, all regularly
appointed CG employees up to HAG level are eligible for MACP scheme in which
employees who have completed 10, 20 and 30 years will move to immediate next
pay level in the new matrix.
Also, as per
DOPT OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt (D) dated 18.02.2015, DOPT has strictly advised to
ensure strict compliance to the time limits indicated in MACPs for grant of
benefits under the MACP scheme as and when the employees become eligible for
such benefits.
But to my
disappointment, MACP I/II/III was not accorded to me as I have completed
10/20/30 years of service as on ____________. But to the till date the MACP was
not granted which is a colossal loss to me.
It is learnt
that the due MACP has not been granted to me due to application of benchmark in
the APAR which were not communicated to me and provided me a chance to
represent against the low grading in the APAR.
As per DOP&T OM No. 21011/1/2005-Estt(A)(Pt-I)
dated 23.07.2009, the APAR for the periods under reference should have been
communicated to me in the month of SEPTEMBER of the respective year. If done
so, I would have preferred appeal within 15 days as per DOP&T OM No.21011/1/2005-Estt(A)(Pt-II) dated 14.05.2009
Further, as
per DOPT O.M. No.21011/1/2010-Estt.A
dated 27.04.2010, undisclosed APAR should not be taken in consideration for
grant of MACP and therefore application of the uncommunicated APAR for the
grant of MACP is a farce and will tantamount to the denial of natural justice
and breach of law of the land.
In this regard I wish to
submit that as per the DG(P) No.4-7 (MACPS)/20019-PCC dt
30.06.2011 “ Complete APAR is required
to be communicated to the official concerned from the reporting year 2008-09”
which was not done by the SSPOs. By not communicating the APAR in time the SSPOs denied a chance to appeal
against it to the Competent Authority for less grading.
Moreover, it is
appurtenant from the supreme court judgement{Dev Dutt v. Union of India and other,
2/2009, Swamysnews 74, 2008 2) SCC (L&S), 771 date of judgment 12.5.2008) on application of
bench marks on promotion all gradings in the confidential reports are to be
communicated to adhere to the principles of natural justice within a reasonable
period after CRs are finalized. Based on
this judgment, the provision of representation become mandatory in the orders
cited in para supra.
It is a settled law that
uncommunicated and adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon in the process of
selection for promotion in view of the decision in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs
Union of India [ 2013 (9) SCC 566 ]. The impugned judgement, Rukhsana Shaheen
Khan v Union of India [2006 SCC Onine Del 1840 ] is set aside with the
directions to ignore uncommunicated adverse ACRs and to take a fresh decision
according to law giving opportunity of hearing in the process. (CA No. 32 of
2013)
In view of
the above judicial pronouncements, I request the competent authority to take
the decision in a judicious manner and by taking up my case for the next
Departmental Screening Committee which is going to convene for the grant of
MACP and issue favorable orders for granting the same.
An ordinary Postal worker, born in a village Krishnarayapuram in the erstwhile Trichy District and now under Karur district. Elevated to the highest echelon of the Union as the General Secretary of the All India Postal Employees Union, Group C Central Headquarters at New Delhi and the Leader Staff Side of the Departmental Council JCM. 
In a case in our neighbouring Dvn APAR was communicated but the due to the ignorance of the official he had not appealed. The result was that he was denied MACP . The matter was brought to my notice.When the APARwas collected through RTI,it was revealed that while working as PA in a SO, the official failed to achieve the target set by SPOs for SB canvassing. This was recorded in the pen picture in the APAR. This was challenged again through RTI seeking Departmental instructions connecting SB canvassing and APAR.It was repiied that no such instructions exist for lowering the APAR just because of the failure to achieve target. But nothing could be done at this stage as appeal was not filed on time.Even the legal opinion didn't favour the filing of an OA due to lapse of time.I am mentioning this to inform all concerned to keep your eyes open to all the rules and regulations which can be used as safeguards against the orbitrary actions of the administration.
ReplyDeleteFor the present generation Com KVS is doing a yoemen service even at this age, when he should have spent his time with family. So please utilise it properly and reap the benefits.
Good advice. Thanks
Delete