Prem Chnadra vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

The instant Original Application has been filed seeking the following reliefs: -

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed under the respondents to the post of Health Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- on 28.11.1995 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Food Inspector vide order dated 10.09.1999. The applicant is presently posted as Chief Health Inspector. Having completed 30 years of service on 28.11.2025, the applicant claimed the benefit of 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-. However, his claim was not accepted on the ground that his APAR was not “very good”. The applicant states that while his APAR for the year 2024-25 was assessed as “very good” by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, the Accepting Officer downgraded the same to “good” without any prior notice or warning. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 17.10.2025 against the said grading, which was considered by the competent authority on 04.05.2026; however, the final grading was retained as “good” without recording any specific reasons for such downgrading. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 25.05.2026 seeking the benefit of 3rd MACP, which is pending consideration. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking the benefit of 3rd MACP with consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has an unblemished service record of more than 30 years and has never received any warning, charge-sheet or faced any departmental inquiry during his service career and that his APARs had consistently been assessed as “very good”. He further submitted that the APAR for the year 2024-25 was assessed as “very good” by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, but the Accepting Officer downgraded the same to “good” without any prior notice or warning. He further submitted that no adverse remarks had been recorded by the Reporting or Reviewing Officers and, rather, the Reporting Officer had recorded “Beyond Doubt” in respect of integrity and “VERY GOOD” in respect of the special attributes mentioned in the APAR. Learned counsel Central Administrative Tribunal^{further submitted that the downgrading of the APAR was not} supported by specific reasons and was contrary to the applicable instructions relating to recording and communication of adverse remarks. He also submitted that the applicant has already submitted a representation dated 25.05.2026 before the Respondent No. 3/Competent Authority, which is pending consideration.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Respondent No. 3/Competent Authority to consider and decide the said representation, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if a direction is issued to the Respondent No. 3/Competent Authority to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 25.05.2026, in accordance with law, within a stipulated period.

In view of the fair submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the merits of the case, the instant Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No. 3/Competent Authority to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 25.05.2026, after perusal of the relevant APAR entry as well as the applicable MACP scheme, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into Central Administrative Tribunal^{the merits of the case.}

Accordingly, the Original Application stands disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.