At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK
By, MEMBER (J) & THE HONOURABLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU
By, MEMBER (A)
For the Applicant: Pradeep Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.
Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A).
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i). Applicant be given the benefit of MACP from its due date along with arrears and the interest thereon.
(ii).The applicant be given the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- from the date of due.
2. Averment has been made in the OA that the applicant was appointed as Library Clerk in the PGIMER, Chandigarh on 19.05.1999 and hence, the financial upgradation under ACP was due to him in May, 2009 on the completion of ten years service in the Institute. However, the applicant was not given the financial upgradation on the due date. Therefore, he served legal notice upon the respondents on 18.8.2011 (Annexure P-1). Later, through office order dated 18.1.2012, the applicant was informed that he had been cleared for the first financial upgradation under MACP w.e.f. 01.07.2011 (Annexure P-2). The applicant filed representation on 27.2.2012 claiming the first financial upgradation under MACP from the year 2009 (Annexure P-3). The applicant also claimed that the grade pay given to the applicant as per the MACP was Rs. 2800 while it should have been Rs. 4200. In response to the application filed by the present applicant, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 12.3.2012 (Annexure P-4)
3. In the grounds for relief, it has been claimed that the impugned action on the part of the respondents delaying the first financial upgradation due to him under MACP Scheme caused mental suffering and economic loss to him. The applicant had never been informed about any adverse entries/remarks in his ACRs and hence, the impugned order was not maintainable under law.
4. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the applicant has completed ten years of regular service on 19.5.2009. Accordingly, his case for grant of 1st financial upgradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 19.5.2009 was placed for consideration before the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 20.8.2010. The Screening Committee did not find his case fit for grant of 1st financial upgradation under MACP as he did not meet the required ACR benchmark. However, the matter was again placed before the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 4.1.2012 for reconsideration and the Screening Committee after due deliberations recommended his name for 1st Financial Upogradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 1.7.2011 and order was issued on 18.1.2012. So far as granting the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs. 4200 is concerned, it has been clarified that as per MACP guidelines dated 19.5.2009, the pay scale prescribed under promotion would be given to the applicant only on his promotion and he had now been granted financial upgradation in the immediate next higher Grade pay under MACP Scheme.
5. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the facts/grounds taken in the OA and stressed that the applicant had never been advised that his ACRs were below the benchmark level for consideration of financial upgradation benefit while as per the rules, adverse entries in the ACR were required to be conveyed to the applicant to enable him to represent against the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there were no guidelines existing that the contents of ACRs had to be conveyed to any employee before considering the case for financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme. The case of the applicant was placed before the Screening Committee constituted to consider the cases of persons due for financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme and the applicant could not be considered for the award of the first financial upgradation as his ACRs were below the benchmark level. However, the first financial upgradation was allowed w.e.f. 1.7.2011 when it was seen that the relevant ACRs for consideration on that date were favourable.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and it is clear from the material on record that the applicant did not get the financial upgradation in 2009 as his ACRs were considered to be be
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
low the benchmark level by the Screening Committee that considered his case. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to cite any rule/judgement to support his contention that the contents of the ACR below the benchmark level are required to be conveyed to an employee before the case for financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme is considered. Hence, this OA is held to be devoid of merit and the same is rejected accordingly. 8. No order as to costs.